Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 01:52:48

on Sat Nov 22 2008, Tomas Puverle <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> wrote:

> Anyway, I think a lot of people on this forum are missing the point:  I'm not
> claiming that the old behaviour is in some way better or worse.  
> I am saying the following:  
> 1)  Is the behavioural change too much of a diversion from previous expected
> (documented) functionality that the new change is in fact a defect

We haven't established that, IMO.  Unless I missed it, nobody has shown
where in the old documentation it was stated that a default-constructed
iterator range is empty.

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