12 Sep
2025
12 Sep
'25
3:39 p.m.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 6:48 PM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com> wrote:
But the same applies to row, used in the proposed range-for loop. There's also no row in SQLite. And that pseudo row is also just a statement in disguise, the same very one that was in resultset. So how is that any different? I'm still confused by that aspect.
There have been no objections to having either a single view type or two distinct types for owning and non_owning ranges. The concern is more about a type that could act as both owning and non_owning at the same time. For example the following could provide that same functionality without the mentioned ownership issue: auto stmt = conn.prepare("select ..."); for(const order& ord : range<order>(stmt))