Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-02 11:02:24

on Tue Sep 02 2008, Arno Schödl <aschoedl-AT-think-cell.com> wrote:

>
> The RangeEx documentation writes something like "what algorithms are to
> containers, adaptor ranges are to ranges". Whenever you are applying one
> (non-permutating) algorithm to a container, and then another and then another,
> you can stack range adaptors. It's like lazy evaluation of a Haskell list.

Sheesh; give me a little credit, please.  I know what range adaptors do.

> Looking through our code for adaptor ranges, I find:
>
> unique_range
> union_range
> difference_range
> filter_range
> concat_range
>
> These ranges are all actually used in our program. All these ranges need an end
> iterator, and any stacking of any combination of these ranges leads to the
> problems we are discussing here. I don't find this impractical.

You're missing my point.  Are you indeed making such stacks?  If so,
what are you doing with them?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com