Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 13:29:48

on Mon Nov 24 2008, "Tomas Puverle" <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> wrote:

>> Finally, it answers mine.  Now the question is: whose code will remain
>> broken?  Those who used iterator_range prior to 1.35 and relied on this
>> feature, or those who used it after 1.35 and expect not to incur space
>> and time overhead to support it?
>
> At this point I have no expectations about the outcome of this, especially 
> given Thorsten's response that "he's too busy to deal with this".
>
> I'm going to have to go through my code and change it and remove all uses of 
> iterator_range.

If you really like the abstraction, there's no reason you can't use
toms::iterator_range instead of the one in Boost.  That would surely
induce far less churn and instability in your codebase.

> Perhaps it's better that we go forward and invest the effort in
>
> 1)  Making sure that some of the Range concepts get fixed
> 2)  See if we can come up with a way to prevent changes like this in the 
>     future

I agree with those as priorities.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com