Matias Capeletto skrev:
On 5/23/07, "JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z" <joaquin@tid.es> wrote:
----- Mensaje original -----
[snip]
Moreover, one can always convert the std::pair to a range very easily, although this conversion would be much simpler if iterator_range and sub_range provided ctors taking std::pairs of iterators --Thorsten, would you consider adding this a good idea?
They are already provided. I have just being playing with them with Boost.Bimap.
It's there implicitly because the two classes has a templated constructor that takes a Range template argument.
2) In any case do you think that including typedef for the returned range type will make code more readable? The idea is to define:
typedef -range_type- sub_range; // the name can be different typedef -const_range_type- const_sub_range;
So the user code will look like this:
typedef bimap<string,int> bm_type; bm_type bm; //... bm_type::left_sub_range r = bm.left.range(...,...); I am not sure. On one hand, the syntax above is obviously more concise, but on the other hand a casual reader would have to look up what sub_range is to fully understand the code, whereas the std::pair is self explanatory and moreover it's honored by the tradition of equal_range().
At least for Boost.Bimap, compare:
std::pair< bm_type::map_by<name>::const_iterator, bm_type::map_by<name>::const_iterator
r = bm.by<name>().range(...,....);
with:
bm_type::map_by<name>::const_sub_range r = bm.by<name>().range(...,....);
Maybe "sub_range" is not the better word. IMO it is not a bad election.
boost::sub_range< bm_type::map_by<name> > r = bm.by<name>().range(...,...); is not that bad IMO. This should work with or without dependency on Boost.Range. Without dependency there might be an extra conversion, I haven't timed code to see if it really matters. -Thorsten