Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 23:20:39

AMDG

Tomas Puverle wrote:
>> The default-constructed state of a string class is a perfectly valid 
>> state, that's totally unrelated.
>>     
>
> My point was that a default constructed range may be in a perfectly valid 
> state, too, depending on its iterators.
>   

Indeed.  I think that a default constructed iterator_range should be 
usable and empty
iff default constructed iterators are non-singular and equal.  This 
effectively
pushes dealing with default construction onto the iterators.  IMO, this is
more consistent than the old behavior, where a default constructed
iterator_range was "empty", but r.begin() == r.end() could be undefined 
behavior.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe