On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Michel Morin <mimomorin@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. wrote:
What I mean is that currently,
r | reversed
returns a reverse_range<R> which stores its adapted range by reference (i.e., R&).
reverse_range<R> does not store the reference; it stores adapted iterators (i.e. a pair of reverse_iterator<range_iterator<R>::type>).
Oh, my mistake! That was an implicit assumption based on an incomplete read of the documentation :( In that case, my suggestion would be more radical relative to the present implementation.
reverse_range<R> should store its adapted range by, either R& (most of
What if we introduced a metafunction that dictated what the
time) or R (in the case that the adapted range is a directly or indirectly a moved_range/by_value_range).
Do you mean reverse_range<R> stores reverse_forwarder and R for the latter case?
Yes (I think so). Now I'm curious: what are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing reverse_range<R> as a pair of reverse_iterator< R::iterator >'s (I'm being sloppy here, but based on your above assertion, this is the present implementation) versus as a wrapper around an R (held by reference or value) directly? In the latter case, for example, reverse_range<R>::begin would return reverse_iterator< R::iterator >(boost::end(r)) (where r is the wrapped range of type R). - Jeff