Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-22 13:15:57
> My guess is that they're Thorsten's attempt to avoid silent breakage.
> Whether or not the attempt was well-executed is another matter, but I
> can understand why he might have done it: he realized that the original
> design was wrong, and rather than silently letting people get away with
> using it in ways that were to become illegal, he detected the
> newly-illegal usage in the only way possible, at runtime.
A better way to fix it though, is to introduce another class, instead of
breaking an existing one. At this point I don't care what they're called - I
think they should be both in boost, even though I think the best way to proceed
would be to keep iterator_range as it was before and add a base class which has
the new semantics.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk