Subject: Re: [boost] for_each abstraction
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jhellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-18 03:53:03
On 11/17/2010 1:50 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 4:24 PM, joel falcou wrote:
>> Binding algorithm to container type lessen genericity of code.
> ... but is sometimes done in practice when the generic framework doesn't
> provide the concepts for optimal implementations; e.g.
> std::map::lower_bound. In the STL, that would be the case with for_each
> over segmented sequences. A better solution, however, would be to define
> a concept for segmented iterators and write a generic segmented for_each
Right. I almost read this as you suggesting to use segmented iterators
for the OP's problem, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting.
The OP's original problem (as I understand it) was to provide a generic
framework to use thrust::for_each when working with thrust::vector's,
boost::fusion::for_each when working with Boost.Fusion sequences, and
std::for_each when using any STL-compatible range (the default,
basically). Indeed, seems like this would just extend the idea of
differentiating whether to dispatch to a std::for_each or a segmented
for_each. I only meant to suggest that one would have to somehow tie
the sequence to a particular iteration mechanism (i.e., a for_each
implementation). The use of member function notation was a poor choice
which kicked up more dust than I thought :/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk