Subject: Re: [boost] [iterator] counting_iterator::reference shouldbevalue_type?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-06 12:31:00
on Tue Jan 06 2009, Arno SchÃ¶dl <aschoedl-AT-think-cell.com> wrote:
>> It's not "so bad," it's just an unnecessary limitation. If you really
>> need a random access counting iterator, you'd be out of luck.
> It seems to me that the standard should specify whether iterator::reference must
> outlive its iterator.
That's a separate issue. It doesn't.
> Then the current counting_iterator is wrong.
Oh, then you mean that the standard should specify *that* iterator::reference
must outlive the iterator. Then you should know that the standard did
anticipate a similar issue:
so it's probably intentional.
> Or iterator::reference may die with its iterator, then
> reverse_iterator is wrong. If the C++ standard is quiet on this issue,
> maybe it should be clarified.
Go for it; write a paper!
-- 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