Fredrik Blomqvist wrote:
Wouldn't it be convenient if iterator_adaptor provided a protected "self typedef" for use by client code? In particular I'm thinking of the constructor case that basically always is feeding an iterator to the iterator_adaptor baseclass, thus needing its explicit type. (In most examples and tests this typedef is manually created as a 'super_t' for example).
Having a predefined type would reduce the amount of boilerplate code and the risk of getting out-of-sync with the declaration. I suggest a name something like 'iterator_adaptor_t' instead of 'super_t' to lessen name-clash possibility.
I'm not sure this is going to work: template<class T> class yours : public iterator_facade<T, ...> { public: yours(.....) : super_t(.......) { } }; When compiler parses the above, name lookup does not use the scope of iterator_facade, so no matter what's typedefed there, 'super_t' won't be found. - Volodya