On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 07:31:13PM +1000, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Pavol Droba" <droba@topmail.sk> wrote in message news:20040507065316.GC20346@lenin.felcer.sk...
| Would it make sense to move iterator_range to this library as well? | (given the fact it was requested to be separated from the string algo lib | during the review)
yes, I was about to ask about that :-)
| After all, it is a minimal encapsulation of the Range concept. If | the library will not be only about the traits, it might be natural to | put it there.
yes.
How about calling it range<> then? I think back then I suggested to call it range<>, but iterator_range was chosen because it was a range of iterators.
I would stick with iterator_range. Range for concept is fine. Concept is mainly a documentation issue and there, it is easy to clearly state the affinity to containers. It is not same for code entities like iterator_range is. IMO "range" is too broad term to be used this. Regards, Pavol