"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:u7jgm77rf.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes: | | > "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message | > news:u64w6a66h.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | > | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes: | > | | > | > yeah, ok. I guess we could also demand that the range:: or iterator:: | > | > prefix is the name of a class. | > | | > | I don't understand what you're getting at here. | > | > make value<T>::type etc nested classes of the iterator/range class. | | Bad idea IMO; it means nobody can adapt a 3rd party type or a builtin | to make it fit the Range concept. It's the same reason we use traits | instead of requiring nested type names.
yeah, seems bad. I don't understand how you would define std::iterator::value<T>::type etc then?
You wouldn't. That doesn't work. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com