Dear iterator experts, Jesse Perla recently reported that boost::multi_array fails compilation for many basic tasks on MSVC 2010. I investigated the failures, because I had already investigated other failures on MSVC 2010 reported by Jesse Perla for boost::ublas. While I'm quite familiar with boost::ublas, I'm a complete novice with respect to boost::multi_array and boost::iterator. I could track the failures to a specific (intentional?) behavior of iterator_facade from Boost.Iterator (more specifically of facade_iterator_category.hpp): http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/03/163039.php Thomas Klimpel wrote:

What effectively happens it that the iterator gets the category "input_iterator", but std::copy wants to have an "output_iterator". I think I understand why the iterator doesn't satisfies the requirement of a "forward_iterator", but it's unclear to me why it didn't qualify as an "output_iterator". There is an "input_output_iterator_tag" in "boost/iterator/detail/facade_iterator_category.hpp", so it would have been possible for the iterator to be both "input_iterator" and "output_iterator". However, it seems to me that "input_output_iterator_tag" is never used in the Boost.Iterator library. I would have to read more about "output_iterator" to understand whether Boost.Iterator is correct here. With my current understanding of "output_iterator", I would say it's a bug in "boost/iterator/detail/facade_iterator_category.hpp".

Perhaps somebody with more knowledge about "output_iterator" and Boost.Iterator can explain to me why an iterator using the "boost::random_access_traversal_tag" for the "CategoryOrTraversal" template parameter of "iterator_facade" will never get the category "output_iterator" (or "input_output_iterator_tag").

Of course I could go on and read more about "output_iterator", or find out whether the Boost.Iterator documentation has to say something about this issue, but since I only came to this problem because I wanted to help Jesse Perla on a problem with boost::multi_array, I would much prefer if an "iterator expert" could "take over". Regards, Thomas