1 Sep
2009
1 Sep
'09
1:22 p.m.
Neal Becker wrote:
er wrote:
I'm not sure if I already asked in a private conversion, but even if I did, this the occasion to ask again : why not have an assignment operator for cycle_iterator? I think the base iterator could be replaced by that which is contained in super_t.
Would not the default compiler-generated assignment operator work?
Not if the iterator is default constructed and later assigned, at least the last time I checked. I've modified your file here that corrects this problem: https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/statistics/iterator/