Re: [Boost-users] A forward iterator need not be default-constructible

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] A forward iterator need not be default-constructible
From: Kerry, Richard (richard.kerry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-30 13:15:24

I read that as a comment about a hypothetical perfect compiler.

One that completely complied with The Standard, and had perfect optimization.

Such a compiler would nevertheless be allowed to fiddle with the iterator and be compliant.
While providing an iterator that could not be compared to itself (not releiably).

Probably,
Richard.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of 
> Andrew Sutton
> Sent: 30 September 2011 18:09
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] A forward iterator need not be 
> default-constructible
> 
> > I had thought we were discussing what was allowed on type T.
> 
> Sure, but that doesn't invalidate my statement that the standard's
> limitations are too strict. I'm just thinking ahead.
> 
> > Yet "any sentence that starts with 'a clever compiler' 
> should be viewed with
> > suspicion" contradicts the very position you think is 
> reasonable, and was
> > stated as an answer to an example of an optimization a 
> clever compiler might
> > make.
> 
> I think you may have misunderstood. I think that it is a reasonable
> position to view some optimizations as suspicious.
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
> 
>