Re: [boost] [iterators] Proof-of-concept for a sentinel iterator adapter

Subject: Re: [boost] [iterators] Proof-of-concept for a sentinel iterator adapter
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-13 19:00:14

Steven Watanabe wrote:

> How do you plan to represent the end without adding extra overhead for 
> comparisons?

In the general case, you would need to use a boolean since you cannot 
just set the iterator to some magic value such as null.
The case of pointers could still be specialized.

The efficiency overhead could eventually be avoided by relaxing the 
requirement that both the begin and the end iterator should have the 
same type, as was suggested by David Abrahams in this message:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/179289