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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk