Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Dave Handley (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 09:46:18

David Abrahams wrote:

>
> on Sat Nov 22 2008, Tomas Puverle <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> At the moment all of the useful brain power is spent on trying to
>> prove that what we're doing is wrong.
>
> Maybe my brain power is useless, but so far it is being spent on trying
> to get someone to show me the specification that guarantees the old
> behavior will work.  For me, that is still at the heart of the matter.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this post been in the thread for almost 
a day now:

Tomas Puverle wrote:

> Scott,
>
>> But what semantics for empty *are* documented?
>>
>> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/libs/range/doc/boost_range.html
>> #Semantics
>> empty(x) returns boost::begin(x) == boost::end(x)
>
> Prior to 1.35, the iterator_range<> documentation read the following:
>
> "Recall that many default constructed iterators are singular and hence can 
> only
> be assigned, but not compared or incremented or anything. However, if one
> creates a default constructed iterator_range, then one can still call all 
> its
> member functions. This means that the iterator_range will still be usable 
> in
> many contexts even though the iterators underneath are not. "
>

And doesn't this answer your question about whether documented behaviour has 
changed?

Dave