Subject: Re: [boost] AlRangeExandrescu?
From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrei_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-28 17:20:29
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Now here comes an interesting possibility. Boost::RangeEx also defines
>> a typename Boost::RangeEx::iterator, and begin() and end() that return
>> iterators. But it makes them optional! Meaning, as much as there are
>> forward vs. bidirectional ranges, there are ranges that cloak
>> iterators versus ranges that don't.
> Would there be any reason for a range not to provide iterators except
> those iterators being hard to write?
> In case there is none, I don't think it's such a good idea to use
> concept refining for a non conceptual difference, but rather an
> implementation difficulty.
It's not only implementation difficulty. I have many ranges that make
next no sense as iterators. For example I have a range that spits out
random numbers. The notion is very easy to fathom as a range, but
forcing it into the iterator framework would be forced for the designer
as well as the user of the notion. The design would be a net loss for
everybody if it were required to define an iterator.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk