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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk