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
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
I agree with those as priorities.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk