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>
>> 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:
>> But what semantics for empty *are* documented?
>> 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
> be assigned, but not compared or incremented or anything. However, if one
> creates a default constructed iterator_range, then one can still call all
> member functions. This means that the iterator_range will still be usable
> many contexts even though the iterators underneath are not. "
And doesn't this answer your question about whether documented behaviour has
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk