On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:55 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Sat Nov 22 2008, "Daniel Walker" <daniel.j.walker-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
As far as I can tell from looking at the svn history, when iterator_range failed to meet the Range concepts, rather than changing iterator_range, the concept checks were gutted. If you don't pass the test, change the test?!!! :(
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. That's exactly the right thing to do when the test is wrong. The question is, was it? That depends on the documentation. Did the test match the specification before and/or after this modification? Or, was the specification modified too?
I don't mean to overreact. However, the specification was modified too. The Range concept was defined in the review, and I see no reason that it should have changed. Daniel Walker