Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 22:23:31

on Sun Nov 23 2008, "Dave Handley" <dave-AT-dah.me.uk> wrote:

> David Abraham[sic] wrote:
> <big snip - cos I can't be bothered with this thread any more>
>>
>> Okay, but should they both be in Boost, now that the damage is done?
>> I'm not sure that's the right answer either.  And, by the way, I'm not
>> saying it's the wrong answer; I'm saying I haven't been convinced in
>> either direction.
>>
>> If Tom isn't prepared to accept using boost::old_iterator_range instead
>> of boost::iterator_range, we have to break a bunch of other peoples'
>> code, which seems worse to me.  Then both groups of users will have been
>> disrupted.  If Tom *is* prepared to use boost::old_iterator_range, IMO
>> it may as well be tom::iterator_range: we don't have to have this
>> component in Boost at all, except as an example along with the change
>> notes that tell you how to write a component with the old behavior if
>> you need it.
>>
>
> It is absolutely clear from this post that you are missing the entire
> point. I've tried to cover the point from about 3 different
> directions, and each time you get bogged down in something off-topic.

Too bad, and just when I thought we were getting down to brass tacks.
Well, maybe Tom would care to weigh in on these issues; I'm still making
an effort to figure out how best to resolve them.

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