Re: [Boost-users] Boost::tokenizer and reverse iterators

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-31 06:07:53

Perhaps it doesn't provide them because reverse_iterator won't work.
At Sunday 2004-05-30 07:40, you wrote:
>I've also tried rbegin/rend.
>However, the boost::tokenizer doesn't provide these methods, while it does 
>provide begin/end.
>
>Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
>
>>perhaps you should try rbegin() and rend() like you're supposed to w/ 
>>reverse_iterators
>>At Sunday 2004-05-30 04:56, you wrote:
>>
>>>I'm using boost v1_31_0 and gcc v3.3.2
>>>
>>>In experimenting with boost::tokenizer to meet a requirement that I 
>>>have, I've tried hooking it to a reverse iterator.
>>>This act produced a run-time error.
>>>
>>>This is the code:
>>>const string test = "One:Two:Three:Four";
>>>typedef char_separator<char> Sep;
>>>typedef tokenizer<Sep,string::const_reverse_iterator> Tok;
>>>Sep sep(":");
>>>Tok t(test,sep);
>>>for (Tok::iterator iter=t.end();iter!=t.begin();++iter)
>>>cout << *iter << endl;
>>>
>>>Executing this produces continous output of "garbage".
>>>
>>>Switching the ".end()" and ".begin()" references in the for loop doesn't 
>>>fix this problem.
>>>Switching from "const_reverse_iterator" to "const_iterator" produces the 
>>>following output:
>>>One
>>>Two
>>>Three
>>>Four
>>>
>>>Is there a way to use a reverse iterator with boost:tokenizer?
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Boost-users mailing list
>>>Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>>>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>>
>>Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
>>The five most dangerous words in the English language:
>>"There oughta be a law"
>>_______________________________________________
>>Boost-users mailing list
>>Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>_______________________________________________
>Boost-users mailing list
>Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"