Re: [boost] [iterator][range] Synchronization on 'master'

Subject: Re: [boost] [iterator][range] Synchronization on 'master'
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-16 14:05:42

On 10/16/15 10:51 AM, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 10/16/2015 11:10 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> On 10/15/15 9:50 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
>>> I have pushed a number of changes to iterator from 'develop' to 'master'
>>> for the next release.
>>>
>>> A series of these changes on 'develop', by Marcel Raad, is an attempt to
>>> remove from 'iterator' the use of the deprecated headers
>>> 'boost/iterator.hpp' and 'boost/detail/iterator.hpp' in favor of using
>>> 'std::iterator' directly instead of 'boost::iterator' and
>>> 'std::iterator_traits' and 'std::distance' directly instead of
>>> 'boost::detail::iterator_traits' and 'boost::detail::distance'.
>>> Essentially these changes mean that any other library using 'iterator'
>>> classes would fail if they attempted to refer to 'boost::iterator',
>>> 'boost::detail::iterator_traits', or 'boost::detail::distance'.
>>
>> The serialization library depends heavily on functionality only present
>> in boost/iterator.  This sounds like a recipe for surprises
>
> Only if serialization directly specifies 'boost::iterator',
> 'boost::detail::iterator_traits', or 'boost::detail::distance'. If it
> just uses the usual iterator templates the change would not affect it.

So namespaces aren't changed at all?  I notice I'm using things like 
boost::iterator_value, boost::iterator_core_access, ... etc.  (off topic 
- In hindsight it seems a mistake to put them into the root namespace). 
  I don't happen to use #include <boost/iterator.hpp> but isn't this a 
common idiom (convenience headers) in boost libraries? Are you sure you 
want to make a special case here?

Robert Ramey