From: Hamish Mackenzie (hamish_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-19 02:47:07
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 23:13 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> Hamish Mackenzie <hamish_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > From: Hamish Mackenzie <hamish_at_[hidden]>
> > Subject: Re: Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting
> > Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
> > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:49:07 +0100
> > Reply-To: boost_at_[hidden]
> > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 12:43 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Hamish Mackenzie <hamish_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> > True and I think if you could fix it you would find it much easier to
> >> > sell me on using * and ->. The issue I have with * and -> is that they
> >> > do not make it clear that the type in question is supposed to be an
> >> > optional (to someone reading the code). I still can't think of an
> >> > example where it is desirable to have X * and optional< Y > use the same
> >> > interface.
> >> How about
> >> indirect_iterator<std::vector<optional<T> >::iterator>
> >> ?
> > Sold!
> > But now I am worried that I wanted to buy a car (container max size 1)
> > and instead I am getting a the back half of a bicycle (deep copy
> > pointer) welded to the front half of a car. Would I be better off with
> > a bicycle instead?
> Whatever. All of these odd cases you pose are distractions from the
> the fact that having such a common interface can be useful.
I think you may have misunderstood my bad analogy. You have talked me
around. Now I am asking for _more_ commonality. Do you think the "fill"
example would be useful to fill missing values in vector<
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk