Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators

Subject: Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 14:27:33

on Wed Sep 03 2008, Arno Schödl <aschoedl-AT-think-cell.com> wrote:

>> > We are simply trying to come up with a simple and clean trick to keep
>> > iterator size under control.
>
>> Really?  IIUC so far we're only discussing compressing the size of
>> ranges, unless we're willing to pay for indirection inside of iterators
>> (I'm not).
>
> No, we also had minimum size iterators. By "minimum size" I mean that each
> iterator contains the begin and end base (e.g., all the way up the stack)
> iterators + all functors involved, stored by value. This is really equivalent to
> a single iterator + boost::bind.

Please be specific.  Do you have some way to avoid my what happens in my
description of stacking filter_iterator and strided_iterator?  If so,
what do you get and how is it done?

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