Christian Engström <christian.engstrom@glindra.org> writes:
Christian Engström <christian.engstrom@glindra.org> writes:
The classic example is the expression a == b, which becomes ambiguous [...] David Abrahams wrote: A classic example of a problem that can bve solved more elegantly by the iterator adaptors library, *without* the problematic two-way implicit conversion
On second thought; that particular "feature" is not provided by the library, but could be provided using the techniques in the library.
-- and it *is* problematic, even if one direction is derived-to-base. You asked for feedback; I say look at the work that those came before you already did in this area. I don't know why you won't, but I've stopped trying now.
Excellent, if there is a more elegant way that can even handle raw pointer iterators, that could very well be how the proxy package should be implemented --- *if* it should be implemented. But there's the rub, as I see it.
I get the distinct feeling that we are talking a little bit at cross-purposes, which is making this discussion much more frustrating for both of us than it ought to be.
Sorry to be blunt, but AFAICT, the problem is that you're not listening.
Before we've managed to give each other a heart attack :-), I'd like to try and see if I can explain what I mean.
If I read you correctly, you are getting more and more annoyed at the idio^h^h^h^h
You're not an idiot; you just ask for feedback and then don't follow up on it.
list member who persists in defending some crappy home-made indirect container implementation
I don't care about your crappy "container" (it isn't a container either, since containers have iterators). It's your crappy "iterator" I have a problem with. I would have thought that was abundantly clear by now.
For me, what's so frustrating is that although the discussion is both useful and interesting for me, and that I'm learning a lot, I feel that it is always drifting away from the aspect that I'm really the most interested in right now, which is to find an answer to the question:
--Is there a way to define a package for indirect containers, so that one can take a program that uses a direct container, and convert it to using an indirect container just by changing the definition of the container type?
I already told you that solving that problem was the very reason for inventing indirect_iterator, so it darned well better be possible. I have no time to read the rest of your post, sorry. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com