David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Raoul Gough <yg-boost-users@m.gmane.org> writes:
Using gcc 3.2 (on MinGW) the template parameter defaults for indirect_iterator_generator don't work with shared_ptr. This has been discussed* on the list before, but there doesn't seem to have been a user-friendly resolution to the issues involved (at least not in release 1_30_0).
Right. The user-friendly solution is to use the iterator adaptors in the current Boost CVS. There won't be a fix for 1.30.0.
Hi Dave, Thanks very much for your reply. I've switched to the CVS head, and can get my test case to compile as follows: #include <boost/iterator/indirect_iterator.hpp> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> #include <list> int main () { typedef std::list<boost::shared_ptr<int> > ListType; typedef ListType::iterator BaseIterator; typedef boost::indirect_iterator<BaseIterator> Adapter; } Is that about right? It looks like the main documentation isn't up to date yet, since it links to libs/utility/indirect_iterator.htm which still talks about indirect_iterator_generator. On a different note, /libs/iterator/doc/facade-and-adaptor.html says: If the default is used for Value, then there must be a valid specialization of iterator_traits for the value type of the base iterator. Is a full iterator_traits actually necessary? Just seems to me that there is conceptual difference between (let's say) dereferencable_traits (which any proxy type could have) and a full-blown iterator_traits (which smart pointers probably wouldn't have). -- Raoul Gough "Let there be one measure for wine throughout our kingdom, and one measure for ale, and one measure for corn" - Magna Carta