Re: [boost] Boost.Algorithm design question

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Algorithm design question
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-29 10:43:38

Dave Abrahams wrote:

> Here's another reason why the first formulation might not be such a hot
> idea: it rules out some obvious implementations that really ought to be
> OK.  For example,
>
>       template <class InputIterator, class T>
>       InputIterator find(InputIterator i, InputIterator j, T value)
>       {
>           while (i != j && !(*i == value))
>               ++i;
>           return i;
>       }

Yes, but this formulation doesn't need *i and value to be of the same type 
or operator== to be an equivalence relation. It just needs operator== to 
return something bool-ish. I've no problem with this requirement.