on Mon Oct 27 2008, "Michael G" <mgoldshteyn-AT-comcast.net> wrote:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boostpro.com> wrote in message news:877i7uivdq.fsf@mcbain.luannocracy.com...
... However, we can make it much nicer, e.g.:
for (vertex_iterator pv,ve = xxx(pv,vertices(g)); pv != ve; ++pv) { ... }
My only problem is how to spell xxx. The attached proof-of-concept uses operator%, but I don't feel particularly good about that choice either. Ideas?
I would recommend one of the following, depending on your verbosity comfort level. The vertical bar, | , denotes alternation:
(get|as|to)_iterators get_container_bounds
Again, quite verbose. But maybe BOOST_FOREACH is the right answer anyway; I don't know.
What with FOREACH's potential extra copying in the rvalue case and the occasional desire to avoid a heavy include, I think there is room for this. But OTOH I won't landgrab an operator overload for it. So we want a short verb for it ... It's quite a lot like "tie" but not quite. So some maybes: tie //not caring that it's not really the same and assuming we have enough wriggle room to avoid ambiguity in the U = pair<T,T> case rtie //r is supposed evoke "right tie" i.e. RHS tie untie //in case you think it is actually more like the opposite of tie than tie itself split //keep the distance from tie pry //short, "tie and pry" is quite rhythmical, supposed to be evocative of "pry open" By the way, your scrap paper code had a typo - the return type was intended to be U. But in the envisaged use case of the for loop T has to equal U anyway, so may be your subconscious was toying with the idea of making it a template in only one type :-). Pete