Hi Thorsten, On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:07:56PM +0100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Hi All,
I have planned to add a few extra convenience function to iterator_range and sub_range. Some people have said the classes could have been a little easier to use. The changes I suggest are the following:
iterator_range: --------------
value_type& front() const; value_type& back() const; value_type& operator[]( size_type ) const; value_type& at( size_type ) const;
These functions seems usefull. However, I think, that operator[] should be available only when underlaying iterator is random-access like
void advance( size_type ); void narrow( size_type left, size_type right ); iterator_range& operator++(); value_type& operator*() const;
I assume, that these are inspired by John Torjo's RTL. I'm not very keen of them, since I consider the using of an iterator_range instead of iterator confusing. But it is only my personal opinion. I would rather include this functionality elsewhere (iterator lib?)
sub_range: ----------
the same, but now constness is propagated
freestanding: ------------
iterator_range make_sub_range( range&, size_type left, size_type right = 0 ); iterator_range make_super_range( range&, size_type left, size_type right = 0 ); iterator_range make_range( range&, difference_type left, difference_type right = 0 );
Generaly the same issue as above applies. However, I find these functions not so offending. There might be a use for the them (last one especialy). What I find important when including such a functions is to make sure, you don't get into the problems with less capable iterators. (i.e that you don't disable the iterator_range for forward-only iterators for instance) Regards, Pavol.