23 Feb
2004
23 Feb
'04
8:17 a.m.
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> wrote in message news:4.3.2.7.2.20040222214057.031e7ab0@mailhost.esva.net...
At 06:12 AM 2/22/2004, Bronek Kozicki wrote:
[snip]
Ouch! That seems an unfortunate design decision.
I agree.
Perhaps two forms of constructors could have been provided - one form that takes two iterators and doesn't store a copy of the contents, and another form like the current constructors which takes a container reference but (unlike the current constructor) makes a copy. I wonder if that was discussed at the time? Or is there a better way to prevent the problem?
Why not change the existing constructor to template<class Container> tokenizer( /*const*/ Container& c,const TokenizerFunc& f = TokenizerFunc()) ? br Thorsten