Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 14:46:07

Daniel Walker skrev:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:37 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> on Sat Nov 22 2008, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>>
>>> iterator_range (which is nothing more than a fancy std::pair, I never
>>> found the use of it myself)
>> It's a bit less redundant to write the type name, since both members of
>> the pair have to be the same, and it has a little more communicative power,
>> since after all pair<Iter,Iter> doesn't have to represent a range; it
>> has only been retroactively adapted to model Range when p.second is
>> reachable from p.first.
>>
>> So, not completely useless, IMO.
> 
> This is a good point, and I'm a big fan of expressivity and
> self-documenting code. iterator_range is a much better name for a
> range than "pair", and it's also good that iterator_range has only one
> template parameter for the type of iterator. I guess what turned me
> off of it was its bulkiness with all those methods sticking out of it
> in every direction.

Daniel,

Wrt. the new range concepts, then I only changed those so they would 
match the new concept requirements, after the second version of the 
library took its form. I think that was the only sensible thing to do.

best regards

-Thorsten