"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:u8y1137mz.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
| > yeah, seems bad. I don't understand how you would define | > std::iterator::value<T>::type etc then? | | You wouldn't. That doesn't work.
ok, then maybe it is better to stick with range_iterator etc.
Naah. If and when these things go into std, they should be in a sub-namespace, std::range, since otherwise some of your names will probably conflict with an updated standard iterator facility. Also, Boost never contain an interface we know to be suboptimal based on speculation about how a standard version of it might look someday. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com