From: Tim Song (t.canens.cpp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-12-03 00:29:01
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:59 AM Zach Laine via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 6:15 PM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 4:06 PM Tim Song via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > The extent to which an implementation determines that a type cannot be
> > > > input iterator is unspecified, except that as a minimum integral
> > > > shall not qualify as input iterators.
> > Wow, nice bit of archeological work there! Agustin right again, as usual.
> I don't think that's the take-away. "unspecified" does not mean that a
> good implementation only checks that the type is not an integral type. It
> just means that they don't document whatever they do, as they would with
> "implementation-defined". It also does not mean that a Boost library
> (which is not an implementation) should accept "double" as an iterator!
This specification is only used to disambiguate (size_t, value_type) and
(Iter, Iter) overloads.
Having (double, double) go to the latter and explode at compile time might
not be a bad thing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk