Subject: Re: [boost] [range] adaptors vs. rvalue to lvalue& binding
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-23 19:41:51
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Thorsten Ottosen <
> On 3/23/2012 4:20 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>> One possibility:
>>> - make adaptor expressions return const rvalues. The const rvalues will
>>> bind to T& arguments (where T is a template parameter) by deducing T
>>> to be const.
> I don't like this one.
> - make even the const_iterators for such adaptors mutable (writable)
>>> This accurately reflects the fact that such adaptors don't own their
> Seems reasonable.
With Thorsten and Dave on this latter one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk