Re: [Boost-users] Oven, regular and Boost

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Oven, regular and Boost
From: Robert Jones (robertgbjones_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-10 12:15:55

Hi Neil

'Critisms' is putting very strongly, hopefully it's more in the line of
user feedback experience. Overall of course
the reality that I'm pushing it to breaking point is testament to it
usefulness and overall cohesion.

So, in this instance it did not seem wise to me that the sliced adaptor
makes use of iterator arithmetic, and
hence requires random access iterators, or makes use of the source range's
end() as it does.

Characteristics of a superior solution would be to be as close as possible
to perpetuating the range
classification of its source range, and to avoid use of the source range's
end() until the consumer
gets there, hence fully supporting laziness.

I think this is largely achieved by the OvenToBoost implementation, which
creates a new iterator type
using iterator facade or adaptor in the style of transform iterator, and
builds a range type on top of that.
The implementation then counts increments, which is the lightest possible
touch I think. It looks like
this approach would support slicing of unterminated ranges, such as read
from stdin (I think).

Great to see you back on the case btw!

- Rob.

Rob it appears from your comment that you have have a number of design
> criticisms. Would you please make these in a more concrete fashion either
> on-list or however you feel most comfortable? I'd rather not lose the
> feedback, but the feedback (to paraphrase - I think the designs dodgy) has
> very limited utility. If there are considerations let's make them specific
> and consider superior alternatives.

>