Subject: Re: [boost] [range] fat iterators?
From: Eric Niebler (eniebler_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-12 10:35:47
On 11/12/2013 5:22 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 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. 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?
>> : http://ericniebler.com/2013/11/07/input-iterators-vs-input-ranges
> Seems like we've been in this territory before...
That discussion most certainly would have been different had rvalue refs
been around. We're having that discussion now...
-- Eric Niebler Boost.org http://www.boost.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk