"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ubre4mogk.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Richard Peters" <r.a.peters@student.tue.nl> writes: | | > David Abrahams writes: | >> Like Robert I am uncomfortable with a | >> range concept that has iteration capabilities. | >> For one thing, standard containers don't | >> satisfy that concept, and it seems to me | >> that a container ought to be a range without | >> any special adaptation. Furthermore | >> I have doubts about how well this "range/iterator" | >> concept maps onto bidirectional | >> and random access. That said... | > | > I think it will be very difficult to have the standard containers | > satisfy a range concept. | | It's difficult to have standard containers satisfy *your* range | concept. That's exactly my point. yes, there is two different concepts lurking here. I think it is feasible to have 1. std containers being ranges as defined in boost.range 2. a new concepts that refine the concepts of boost.range by adding iteration capabilities. I believe (2) is exactly what John is doing. -Thorsten