"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uoekp5v5w.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
| > I asked Jeremy if I could use it as a basis for my docs...so I | > did...but then most changed so only a few of Jeremy's original words are left. The results are in libs/range/doc/range.html IIRC. | Is one redundant now? Should one concept refine the other | (refactorization)?
Jeremy's collection concept had the same motivation as the range concept: to lower requirement on container types.
However, Jeremy's concept talk about member functions and still mentions a reference type that behaves like a normal reference, but which doesn't have to be it. In the range concepts that is all gone.
So my personal feeling is that collection.html is redundant now.
It's not redundant until you make all the code that relies on it work with models of the more-general Range. Sounds like Collection is a refinement of Range. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com