Hi Thorsten,
iterator_range: --------------
value_type& front() const; value_type& back() const; value_type& operator[]( size_type ) const;
I'm all for having these.
value_type& at( size_type ) const;
I'm don't very much like having a throwing at() function. But this comes from the fact that I don't like vector's at() either. So, you can think of me as neutral on this one.
void advance( size_type ); void narrow( size_type left, size_type right );
I don't like these. I think this is much easier accomplished with the freestanding functions.
iterator_range& operator++(); value_type& operator*() const;
I'm all for it :) Out of curiosity, will you have ++pre and post++?
sub_range: ----------
same as above
freestanding: ------------
iterator_range make_sub_range( range&, size_type left, size_type right = 0 ); iterator_range make_super_range( range&, size_type left, size_type right = 0 ); iterator_range make_range( range&, difference_type left, difference_type right = 0 );
Yup, I'm all for all ;) My favorite would be the last one, and I've been meaning to implement it myself for rangelib. Best, John -- John Torjo, Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -v1.6.3 (Resource Splitter) -- http://www.torjo.com/cb/ - Click, Build, Run!