Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [gil::io] Feedback for scanline_read_iterator
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-19 23:15:34

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Christian Henning <chhenning_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> >
> > What I *think* you want is for operator++ to conditionally call
> > _reader->skip (if the previous operator++ had not been followed by a
> > operator*), while operator* should conditionally call _reader->read
> > (depending on if there had been an intervening operator++ after the
> > previous operator*). So, I think you'd need 2 boolean flags.
> >
> > Does that make sense? (I might objectively not be making sense, I'm not
> > sure.)
> >
> I think your thinking makes sense! I have updated the code here:
> If you could have a look that would be very kind.

I had a quick look, and I immediately noticed that you (still, I guess?)
are incrementing the _pos member upon dereferencing the first
there some reason you don't increment it unconditionally in operator++? I'm
guessing the end result is the same, given the pair of boolean flags
encoding the state, but it's a "code surprise", which increases the
cognitive overhead to read it :)

- Jeff

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at