Subject: Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 15:13:51
David Abrahams wrote:
>> Using Arno's suggestion, dereferencing the end iterator
>> ought to throw, which happens before we increment
>> off the end, right?
> The *underlying* iterator? How are you going to get that to throw if
> it's a pointer?
You would have to wrap it. Any solution using iterators adapters
is going to have to rely on detecting whether an iterator knows
it's own end.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk