Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Algorithm design question
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-31 07:12:59
Dave Abrahams wrote:
> I think you're missing the point, which is:
> When the specification for an algorithm exposes the actual expressions
> used in a given implementation of an algorithm, it tends to lock down
> the implementation in ways that don't necessarily make sense (and can
> prevent optimizations). Tiny details that one usually doesn't
> consider, like whether part of the expression is an lvalue or an
> rvalue, const or non-const, become encoded into the specification of
> the algorithm.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that you want to require
operator== to be an equivalence relation, and it doesn't have to be.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk