Boost C++ Libraries: Ticket #2009: suggested resiliency/ease-of-use

attachment set

Dave Abrahams — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:34:49 GMT

attachment → x.cpp

anonymous — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:17:10 GMT

I could "fix" the code for range2 by adding one typedef:

struct range2 {

range2() {}

typedef char* iterator; typedef iterator const_iterator; this one added char* begin() const { return 0; }

};

Is that good enough, or do you still think it is a big problem that two versions of range_begin() needs to be defined?

-Thorsten

Dave Abrahams — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:43:57 GMT

The problem is what happens with range1 with today's library. I put range2 in there just to prove that my solution doesn't break the other cases.

nesotto@… — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:46:57 GMT

Ok, I wondering if we could make it a bit simpler by only disabling begin( T& ) if the two iterator types are the same? Or do you want it to work if only one of the iterator types is defined?

-Thorsten

cc set

Dave Abrahams — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:33:45 GMT

cc Eric Niebler added

Oh, well, I suppose it's preferable to work with only one of the iterator types defined as well. On the other hand, I realize this whole thing is really only an issue for a person who is adapting an existing type to the Range concept, since the rest of us can use member functions and nested typedefs, which is sufficiently economical. You might consider whether it is important enough to do anything about.

status changed; resolution set

Thorsten Ottosen — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:15:52 GMT

status new → closed
resolution → wontfix