6 Jan
2009
6 Jan
'09
4:41 p.m.
Arno Schödl wrote:
It's not "so bad," it's just an unnecessary limitation. If you really need a random access counting iterator, you'd be out of luck.
It seems to me that the standard should specify whether iterator::reference must outlive its iterator. Then the current counting_iterator is wrong. Or iterator::reference may die with its iterator, then reverse_iterator is wrong. If the C++ standard is quiet on this issue, maybe it should be clarified.
It has been clarified for std::reverse_iterator, which should keep a valid iterator for the returned reference. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2807.html#198 Bo Persson