Re: [boost] [range] adaptors vs. rvalue to lvalue& binding

Subject: Re: [boost] [range] adaptors vs. rvalue to lvalue& binding
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-11 10:33:34

on Wed Apr 11 2012, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com> wrote:

> On 02-04-2012 16:49, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> on Mon Mar 26 2012, Thorsten Ottosen<thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/24/2012 4:14 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>> on Fri Mar 23 2012, Thorsten Ottosen<thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> and your specific objection is...?
>>>
>>> well, it would require the other solution as well before it works. So
>>> the other solution is simpler.
>>
>> Sorry, what other solution would it require?
>>
>
> The other solution you mentioned: make const_iterator equal to
> iterator for the returned range types.

That's not "another solution;" it's part of the same solution.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com