Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

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.

Daniel,

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 
implementation.
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 
iterator_range,
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.

Tom