Subject: Re: [boost] [gil::io] Feedback for scanline_read_iterator
From: Christian Henning (chhenning_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-18 18:33:50
>> you mean pass a boolean into operator*?
> Surely not, as the signature of an overloaded operator is fixed :)
> I think Phil means rather than do the read in operator++, just set a flag
> in operator++ that the read should be done, and actually do it in
> operator* (which then clears the flag). Then if someone calls operator++
> again without calling operator* (which you can detect by the flag being
> set in operator++), you can do a skip in operator++, and thus avoid
> decoding the line you didn't need.
Interesting idea. I'll update the code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk