Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators

Subject: Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators
From: Arno Schödl (aschoedl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 15:16:31

> > 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 don't need to. The underlying iterator can check explicitly. Only the adaptors must pass this information up with zero overhead, e.g., by doing nothing.

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