Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-22 12:37:49

on Sun Feb 22 2009, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com> wrote:

> Neil Groves skrev:
>>
>> I assumed that overload resolution would be problematic since the range and
>> the iterator overloads have the same number of parameters, and the iterator
>> version has to handle raw pointers etc. I may be under-estimating the
>> meta-programming techniques of enable_if. I will perform some
>> experimentation on old compilers and see how well they handle the change.
>
> I guess there are two reasons:
>
> 1. overwrite is a more explicit name for what is going on.
>
> 2. without concepts, we can't tell if a template argument is a range or an iterator

Actually, I think we can automatically detect most of the syntactic
requirements for both iterators and ranges.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com