Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-26 06:32:38

Daniel Walker skrev:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
> <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> 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.

I getting lost in this thread. And yes, I definitely disagree that the 
old range concepts where better than the new ones.

-Thorsten