[boost] Re: Iterator adaptors <-> boost::bind interaction

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-09 03:18:42

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams writes:
>> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>>> I would say transform_iterator should return by value by default and
>>>> there should be an explicit notation to request by reference semantics
>>>> (if applicable).
>>>
>>> David, any reply on the above? I'd like to come to some kind of
>>> resolution on the outlined problem since it is real and hurting.
>>
>> I don't think there's much danger in transform_iterator itself, is
>> there?  Isn't this all in make_transform_iterator?
>
> Yes, it's in the 'make_transform_iterator's current semantics. I
> should have phrased the above as
>
>      I would say 'make_transform_iterator' should by default return a
>      'transform_iterator' which 'operator*' always returns by value
>      and there should be an explicit notation to request by reference
>      semantics (if it's compatible with the transformation function's
>      return type).

Okay, so the next question.   Do we

  a. Pick a new name for this make_transform_iterator to avoid
     breaking existing uses

  b. Change the semantics to un-break older uses (and
     if so, what do we call the current semantics?)

  c. Something else?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com