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). Probably, Richard.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sutton Sent: 30 September 2011 18:09 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] A forward iterator need not be default-constructible
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@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users