Re: [Boost-users] [Filesystem] Reverse traversal of boost::filesystem::path::const_iterator?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Filesystem] Reverse traversal of boost::filesystem::path::const_iterator?
From: Nat Linden (nat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-01 16:01:50

On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Joshua Boyce
<raptorfactor_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Nat Linden <nat_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> Am I correct? Given the way some containers implement end(), I always
>> feel nervous about decrementing end(). I'm happy to see that
>> Boost.Filesystem's own tests guarantee that usage; but is there
>> anything in the documentation that would have assured me of that?

> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/filesystem/v3/doc/reference.html#path-iterators
>
> "A path::iterator is a constant iterator satisfying all the requirements
> of a bidirectional iterator (C++ Std, 24.1.4 Bidirectional iterators
> [lib.bidirectional.iterators])."

Until I can dig up a copy of the standard -- pardon me, but this feels
slightly divergent from the question I'm asking. Does the standard's
description of "bidirectional iterators" guarantee the operations
legal on the value returned by a container's end() method?

The only operation I feel confident assuming on a value returned by a
container's end() method is [in]equality comparison with another
iterator value.

(Of course, this discussion would be moot if boost::filesystem::path
supported rbegin() and rend() methods... hint, hint...)