Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ben Bear (benbearchen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-12 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 would-be
> 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

Will this make more trouble?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at