Ben, Giovanni: I've been giving some thought to this and I don't think that I'd want to propose next_permutation(first, middle, last) to the standard. It is easily achievable through next_combination (first, middle, last) then going over all the permutations via next_permutation(first, middle), in a loop. Granted, the order of the permutations is a bit different that way, but frankly nobody should care, the order is well specified (just not the lexicographic order on the permutations, but the lexicographic order on the underlying combination and if this combination is the same, the lexicographic order of the permutations), and it makes the would-be proposal a pure library extension -- so much easier to pass by the committee. Just a thought, HB On Nov 12, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Ben Bear wrote:
Another truth, it will exist a conflict between the gacap::next_permutation(first, middle, last) and std::next_permutation(first, last, comp). 2007/11/12, Giovanni Piero Deretta <gpderetta@gmail.com>:
This might be solvable via concepts in C++0x (or even sfinae in C++03 by detecting iteratorness)
I see it, via concepts in C++0x. It will not be a problem in C++0x. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/ listinfo.cgi/boost