[boost] Re: [range] rationale for transform_range() algorithm?

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

there is one alternative which might make copy_range less needed too. We could put this into sub_range<T>:

operator T() const { return T( begin(), end() ); }

So if you really want range2container conversion, you must use a sub_range<string>:

str = sub_range<std::string>( find_first(intput, "jello" ) );

Eeek, no! Implicit conversions should be avoided. But thinking of this as a range conversion is the right way to go, IMO, except that it should be called "range_cast" and it should be explicit.

Anyway, I agree with Eric that the transform_range should go away.

Eric, feel free to remove it or say if I should do it.

I'll do it. Thanks! -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com