I still don't understand which design, yours or mine, is better. It seems mine allows to create iterators with smaller number of lines, but maybe
Rozental, Gennadiy wrote: there's
something else.
Why do you think so? I would say vice versa, since I do not require constructor in derived class to call found_eof().
My line_iterator declares two constructors and 'get'. Yours defines, for stream_line_iterator_impl: one constructor, 'initialize', 'get', 'dereference' and 'equal' plus one constructor in basic_istream_line_iterator This is 1 class and 3 member functions vs. 2 classes and 6 member functions.
I do not put value directly into input_iterator_facade since it too much an assumption. So I need to method dereference in Policy. In your implementation input iterators almost never equal. Even though it is true in many cases. I still believe you couldn't assume it is always the case. So I need method equal in Policy. Actually my implementation was written couple years ago for classic iostreams. I forgot about getline version you are using when ported for Boost.Test needs. Once I switch to standard getline, I don't actually need method initialize anymore for my usage cases. I still not sure is it required in general. BTW don't you missed to call get() in line_iterator constructor? The question remains does we need all that flexibility. I believe - yes. Gennadiy.