Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx
From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-27 11:33:58
Rogier van Dalen skrev:
> Dear Neil,
>> Many lazy adaptors are desirable. I would continue to add more as time
>> permits. My focus is on producing a good foundation for this version. The
>> reviews are giving me a clearer need of what people want from the library.
> Fair enough. This will be fine if many reasonable algorithms can be
> implemented within range_ex. However, could you state how you would
> integrate lazy merge() or anything that takes two or more ranges in
> operator| syntax? The function syntax would be:
> merged(rng1, rng2)
> I believe that the '|' syntax, however cute (I agree there!) is less
> flexible and less obvious than the function syntax. Therefore, I think
> the function syntax should be the primary one.
> Currently merge(), transform(), and the set algorithms use output
> iterators as a substitute for return values. Rephrasing them as
> functions would also get rid of output iterators, which would improve
> their interface.
I tend to agree.
E.g. an algorithm like transform(-) should return a range.
Or perhaps we need a new syntax to enable
rng && rng2 | transformed(binary_fun())
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk