Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 21:51:01
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
> David Abrahams skrev:
>> on Mon Nov 24 2008, "Tomas Puverle" <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com>
>> 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
> What is broken?
I tried to give an explanation last night. If I wasn't clear or if you
disagree on some points, just say so, and we can discuss it.
Also, in all seriousness, I appreciate the time and thought you've
contributed over the years to the library. It's got to suck having to
listen to complaints, but they're offered in good faith, 'cause we all
just want to see all these libraries be the best they can be, even
though we may not be in agreement initially.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk