Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-25 12:46:47

Neil Groves skrev:
> Dear Giovanni,

>>> I do provide both alternatives, for example
>>>
>>> boost::make_uniqued_range(rng) is equivalent to rng | uniqued
>>>
>> IMHO the make_... syntax for range adaptors is horrible (i don't even
>> like the past tense, why not just unique?).
>> But why use two different names in the first place? Why not make
>>
> 
> I simply dislike lots of overloading particularly where the semantics are
> different. Perhaps the semantics aren't that different. 

There are very different. The past tense is used for adaptors that
has O(1) complexity and merely wraps the range's iterators in a new type
of iterators.

An algorithm like

   boost::unique(-)

really modifies the range, | boost::adaptors::uniqued, does not.

-Thorsten