On 11/17/2010 01:05 PM, vicente.botet wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr."<jhellrung@ucla.edu> To:<boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [boost] for_each abstraction
I was imagining something slightly different, where the for_each functions are more tightly coupled to the sequence types. In other words, std::vector and thrust::device_vector both have a for_each member function (or maybe a less intrusive for_each free function found, for example, via ADL):
std::vector< double> vec1; vec1.for_each(op()); thrust::device_vector< double> vec2; vec2.for_each(op());
Please, don't add algorithms in the containers.
Are you objecting to the syntax or to the entire idea of letting sequences opt in for tighter control of their iteration? I'm not 100% convinced it's a good idea, but I'm not convinced it's a bad idea either. It appears (to me, at least) to be one solution to the OP's question, and to Mathias/Joel's problem with "packing" range elements together to vectorize operations. It also could (speculation) make iterating over a type-erased range more efficient, compared to using type-erased iterators. - Jeff