Boost Users :
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).
> -----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
> > 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 list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net