Re: [boost] [range] fat iterators?

Subject: Re: [boost] [range] fat iterators?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-12 08:22:27

Eric Niebler <eniebler_at_[hidden]> writes:

> I wrote an article describing the "fat" std::istream_iterator and how it
> can be slimmed down by giving it an owning istream_range[1]. I see there
> already is an istream_range in Boost.Range, but it suffers from the
> fat-iterator problem I describe there. Is there a compelling reason why
> the implementation of boost::istream_range shouldn't be changed to be
> more like the one I describe? Also, as a commented pointed out, the same
> problem exists for the filtered range and the transformed range, too.
>
> The trick, of course, will be keeping intermediate temporary ranges
> alive long enough to avoid lifetime issues when we chain adaptors and
> assign the result to a local variable. I think a range library that's
> sensitive to the value category of range objects and makes copies of
> rvalue ranges would solve this problem. Thoughts?
>
> Is it time for Boost.Range 3.0?
>
>  [1]: http://ericniebler.com/2013/11/07/input-iterators-vs-input-ranges

Seems like we've been in this territory before...
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/lifetime-of-ranges-vs-iterators-td2650349i20.html