Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators

From: Arno Schödl (aschoedl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-02 12:32:10

> optimum solution they are at least implementations of the functionality. I
> would gladly accept superior contributions ;-). I am also happy to spend
> more time improving them myself. I have to apologise for slow response
> times, my full-time job simply doesn't allow me enough time to contribute to
> this discussion as much as I probably ought to. You have made some very
> valid technical points, let's focus on these please.

My last post was not intended to put pressure on anyone to change anything, and I am very grateful for having boost. But Dave evidently thinks I am wasting everyone's time, and I beg to differ.

If you agree that the general direction, self-contained iterators that use funky ranges to represent themselves efficiently, is right, I would bit by bit change my implementations of adaptor ranges and share them with you. I have not yet contributed to Boost, so probably my code is non-conformant all over the place, but it is a start.

Arno

--
Dr. Arno Schoedl · aschoedl_at_[hidden] 
Technical Director 
 
think-cell Software GmbH · Invalidenstr. 34 · 10115 Berlin, Germany 
http://www.think-cell.com · phone [phone] · toll-free (US) [phone]
Directors: Dr. Markus Hannebauer, Dr. Arno Schoedl · Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 85229