Re: [boost] [range] irange is not very eloquent

Subject: Re: [boost] [range] irange is not very eloquent
From: Neil Groves (neil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-29 03:55:32

>
> I don't really get why all of Neil Groves' iterators are in a range_detail
> namespace either, since they don't particularly feel like implementation
> details, and obviously it prevents declaring variables of that type without
> auto.
>
>
I made a poor decision in this respect. Thanks for picking me up on this. I
either need to make the iterator type public (which I still dislike from an
ideological perspective), or change the return type to something I can make
public.

> A range is just an iterator_range<some_iterator> (at least with the current
> Boost.Range design), so the iterator is quite central to the functionality
> and should be part of the public interface, IMHO.
>
>
We can certainly make these two functions more broadly applicable by
improving the return types. I shall do this ASAP.

Regards,
Neil Groves