Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 22:41:17

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Tomas Puverle
<Tomas.Puverle_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "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.

When we use the term "concept", we're referring to a specific
convention for abstraction in the generic programming paradigm. See
the introduction to the original STL.
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/stl_introduction.html

However, my favorite introduction of all time for generic programming
is Chapter 2 of Jeremy Siek, et. al. The Boost Graph Library. That
book changed my life. :)

Daniel Walker