
8 Jul
2004
8 Jul
'04
12:37 p.m.
Hi 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 a bit confused why I haven't seen this discussed previously though. Hope I'm not missing something (tm).. ;-) Regards // Fredrik Blomqvist