Is there interest in adding a Top-Bounded adaptor into Boost.Range ? Example: using namespace boost::adaptors; using namespace boost::assign; std::vector<int> input; input += 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9; boost::copy( input | bounded(0), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); // prints nothing boost::copy( input | bounded(1), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); // prints 1, boost::copy( input | bounded(2), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); // prints 1,2, boost::copy( input | bounded(8), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); // prints 1,2,3,4,5,7,8, The above example is similar in behavior to ... boost::copy_n( input, 0, std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); boost::copy_n( input, 1, std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); boost::copy_n( input, 2, std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); boost::copy_n( input, 8, std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); The difference is that *copy_n* algorithm doesn't check for begin(range) != end(range) In the following line, an error occurs at runtime... boost::copy_n( input, 9, std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); Unlike the following that runs ok... boost::copy( input | bounded(9), std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, ",")); // prints 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9, This behavior could be equated using *sliced(0, X)*, but sliced requires *RandomAccessRange*, unlike bounded that requires *SinglePassRange*. *bounded* code is based on *indexed* adaptor code, I think it is more efficient than *sliced* ( that uses *make_iterator_range* --> std::advance ). I don't know if this behavior can be achieved using other adapters, if so, please let me know. Is there interest in this for Boost? Regards, Fernando.