Re: [boost] [fusion] Support for classic boost::tuple

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-29 19:43:03

David Abrahams wrote:
> Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> To me it's like, generalizing that something with a wing,
>> a propeller, and all things that comprise an airplane-- is an
>> airplane. No, not necessarily. The presence of these elements
>> do not complete the picture. It can be, say, *just a collection
>> of parts*. Hence, pair<iterator,iterator> is just a collection
>> of 2 iterators, nothing more.
> 
> External, non-intrusive, adaptation of a 3rd party type to make it
> model a particular concept that it doesn't model "inherently" is a
> fundamental generic programming maneuver.  I don't see anything
> particularly wrong with making a pair of iterators model Range.
> 
> Jeremy Siek has described cases to me wherein one type can play two
> different roles with the *same* library.  For that you need two
> different concept maps, to map the type into its different roles.
> Thus his recent "scoped concept_map" proposal.

Example please?

The thing is, conceptually speaking, the pair has a very specific
and well defined purpose (http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/pair.html):

'''
Pair<T1,T2> is a heterogeneous pair: it holds one object of type
T1 and one of type T2. A pair is much like a Container, in that
it "owns" its elements. It is not actually a model of Container,
though, because it does not support the standard methods (such
as iterators) for accessing the elements of a Container.
'''

By "container", it's very clear that it models the tuple
definition. It just so happens that STL does not have facilities
for hetero-sequences. That is the domain of Fusion; and, as an
STL extension, it fulfills that primary intent.

It is also clear that the definition of pair does not, in any
way, have anything to do with iterator ranges. I may grok what
you say that there's no "wrong" here; it depends on the POV.
However, if there is a conflict in definition such as in this
case, it is my thinking that, for all intents and purposes,
the definition that more closely follows the original intent,
in the exact domain that it extends, has to take priority.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net