Subject: Re: [boost] [SPAM (Bayesian)] - Re: Formal Review: Boost.RangeEx - Bayesian Filter detected spam
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-02 15:02:00
on Mon Mar 02 2009, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Mon Mar 02 2009, Robert Jones <robertgbjones-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>> AFAICS there's no issue in principle with something like
>>> vecn | boost::adaptors::sort
Grr... the important context got snipped! Here it is:
>>> Naturally the underlying range must not change in any way, or
>>> all bets are off.
>> The right answer may be to copy the range in that case.
> You may not want to copy the range if the elements aren't copiable or are costly to
> copy. An alternative solution is simply to create an index instead, and use that index
> to iterate the range.
Yes, I thought of that, but it doesn't help in the case where the
underlying range changes, which is what we're discussing.
-- 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