Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Andrew Sutton (andrew.n.sutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 11:07:14

>
> I think this is the right answer (and pretty well argued by now). The
>> behavior of the iterator_range should "inherit" (is there a better word
>> for
>> this?) its semantics from the underlying iterator. To do otherwise would
>> impose requirements on iterators that may not (easily) support those
>> semantics, making the concept less generic (as in represents fewer
>> possible
>> implementations).
>>
>
> Well, it is fairly easy to remove some of the debug-checks from the code.
> Do I understand you correctly in that you want them all removed?
>

No! Definitely no. As I understand it, those debug checks are kind of
playing the role of axiomatic preconditions in debug mode, so they're
actually reinforcing the correct behavior. I think.

I think from a previous post I was considering a kind of checked
iterator_range that could provide additional diagnostics in debug mode -
something akin to the STLPort checked iterators. Providing something like
that as a compile-time replacement for iterator_range would free that class
up to be as lean as possible and sans preprocessor. Completely outside the
scope of the  discussion... sorry.

Andrew Sutton
andrew.n.sutton_at_[hidden]