Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Tomas Puverle (Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 22:20:25

"Thorsten Ottosen" <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:492C7337.5090800_at_dezide.com...
> David Abrahams skrev:
>> on Mon Nov 24 2008, "Tomas Puverle" <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> 
>> wrote:
>
>> 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?

>From my personal perspective, I would like to see some of the assertions 
removed from iterator_range.
I believe that in principle you and others agree with this point.

It seems some other people on this thread have also expressed their concern 
about how the concepts defined during the review have changed.
Since I have no knowledge of this, I am not in a position to comment.

Tom