Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Neil Groves (neil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 10:40:05
I think the majority of opinions on this thread have voiced a preference for
the old behaviour because singularity is a property of an iterator, not a
range. Adding the validity constraint imposes too many restrictions upon
otherwise valid uses of default constructed iterator_ranges where the
iterator provides stronger guarantees.
In my opinion, the Range concept should not have 'singular'.
I appreciate that there were previous discussions prior to your change, but
under firther scrutiny it appears that the wrong conclusion was reached.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Tomas Puverle skrev:
>> If the compromise does not include going back to the old behavior for
>>> boost::iterator_range, then I'm open to suggestions
>> (Joke intended)
>> This really doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a "compromise".
>> Just sounds like you're getting your way.
Perhaps erroneous use of singular iterators could be added through
improvements to iterator debugging facilities?
> Why? I'm open to including a new class with the old behavior, even though I
> think it has little purpose.
I don't think two classes that are almost identical is worthwhile. The
singularity validation does not serve enough useful purpose to justify the
limitations, and space overhead. Singularity debugging does not belong here.
> Wha compromise did you have in mind?
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk