Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 17:10:11
Daniel Walker skrev:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Thorsten Ottosen
> <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> And the change was motivated by real user feedback, something which the
>> original review in some sense could not provide as much of.
> I'm sure you had feedback regarding iterator_range. However, I
> seriously doubt that you received feedback from users demanding that
> empty(r) be immediately removed from the definition of the Range
> concept. That doesn't make any sense,
The feedback was related to the core concepts and on how to map your own
type to the range concept. This task was greatly simlpified in the new
version. Having redundant spec in a concept is never going to fly.
I'm to busy to argue this case anymore. The original design was much
worse than the current. Period.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk