Re: [Boost-users] cycle iterators

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] cycle iterators
From: er (erwann.rogard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-01 09:22:50

Neal Becker wrote:
> er wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure if I already asked in a private conversion, but even if I
>> did, this the occasion to ask again : why not have an assignment
>> operator for cycle_iterator? I think the base iterator could be replaced
>> by that which is contained in super_t.
> 
> Would not the default compiler-generated assignment operator work?

Not if the iterator is default constructed and later assigned, at least 
the last time I checked. I've modified your file here that corrects this 
problem: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/statistics/iterator/