Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request : Boost.Range Extension
From: Michel Morin (mimomorin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-02 08:27:53
Akira Takahashi wrote:
>> I took a look at the implementation of `regular` and found that
>> it is implemented using `shared_pointer`.
>> What are the pros and cons of the `shared_pointer`-based implementation
>> compared to an obvious `optional`-based implementation?
> This is mistake implementation.
> I fixed implementation, boost::shared_ptr to boost::optional.
IIUC, the output of `regular` does not satisfy the Regular concept.
Is this just an implementation deficiency or intentional behavior?
If it is intentional, then the name `regular` might not be a good name...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk