"Dave Harris" <brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message news:memo.753692@cix.compulink.co.uk... | In-Reply-To: <427F7635.4010303@systemhaus-gruppe.de> | sstrasser@systemhaus-gruppe.de (Stefan Strasser) wrote (abridged): | > you might be interested in this document from the new c++0x mailing: | > | > http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1796.html | > | > for the naming discussion, proposed syntax is for(int i : vec) | > (personally I don't care if it's called BOOST_FOREACH or BOOST_FOR) | | I don't mind if it is BOOST_FOR_EACH or BOOST_FOR :-) | | | > I've questioned in the past if it is expected behaviour to do | > "hoisting". the proposal does. | | Although it doesn't seem to say whether "vec" is hoisted, and the given | translation suggests that it isn't. I imagine that is an oversight in the | presentation rather than the intended semantics. Interestingly he gives an | example of an adaptor which could potentially be evaluated multiple times. which example are you referring to? | The proposal says: | | The user is required to include the standard header <iterator> | in which the default version of begin()/end() is defined | | which seems wrong to me. #include<vector> ought to be enough to use for | with std::vector, if it's a built-in facility. chances are that <vector> will include <iterator> anyway. -Thorsten