From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-02 00:47:35
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 06:04:46PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Oops. This is realy bad. I was actualy digging in the
> > implementation. Then I was tring to find it in the documentation.
> > And it seems, that I have not read it properly.
> > So all I said about boost_range_begin() is valid. But the
> > documentation is perfectly misleading.
> Or maybe the documentation is right and the library implementation is
Or maybe both to some extend.
> Also, try the same exercise for a "broken compiler." Follow the
> directions. Does it work?
> Now how do you write a range that's portable to both broken and
> conforming compilers without substantial #ifdef-ing?
No I haven't tried it. If it is as you says, than it is more
broken than I thought.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk