Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 21:23:15
> I was about to suggest that if you want to build a generic library
> that uses ranges, stick to the Range concepts
> (http://tinyurl.com/5z56n2) and avoid tying yourself to types
> generated from iterator_range. Tight bundling always causes problems
> like this. With concepts all of the constraints on a type can be
> encoded in a concept checking class and automatically verified at
> compile time (and of course proposed C++0x language extensions could
> make this even easer/cleaner). Users can rely on the concepts being
> implemented, and authors can use concept checks to make sure their
> implementations meet user expectations.
Thank you for the insightful post. I will change my code to be more in
conformance with the range concept rather than with the iterator_range
However, this will still not solve the problem for my users. Even if I make
the relevant changes and my users still pass in a default constructed
boost::begin() == boost::end() will not work, because iterator_range asserts
on the range not being singular in almost all of the member functions.
This means that I need to erradicate this class altogether.
> If you don't pass the test, change the test?!!!
I am sorry to hear this is the case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk