
Boost : 
From: Ben Bear (benbearchen_at_[hidden])
Date: 20071112 20:52:38
2007/11/13, Hervé Brönnimann <hervebronnimann_at_[hidden]>:
> Ben, Giovanni: I've been giving some thought to this and I don't
> think that I'd want to propose next_permutation(first, middle, last)
> to the standard. It is easily achievable through next_combination
> (first, middle, last) then going over all the permutations via
> next_permutation(first, middle), in a loop. Granted, the order of
> the permutations is a bit different that way, but frankly nobody
> should care, the order is well specified (just not the lexicographic
> order on the permutations, but the lexicographic order on the
> underlying combination and if this combination is the same, the
> lexicographic order of the permutations), and it makes the wouldbe
> proposal a pure library extension  so much easier to pass by the
> committee.
>
Another way, why do not we change the name? The std::permutation are
actually full permutation, so we can call the new one "partial
permutation".
Will this make more trouble?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk