Daniel Walker skrev:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:37 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Sat Nov 22 2008, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:
iterator_range (which is nothing more than a fancy std::pair, I never found the use of it myself) It's a bit less redundant to write the type name, since both members of the pair have to be the same, and it has a little more communicative power, since after all pair<Iter,Iter> doesn't have to represent a range; it has only been retroactively adapted to model Range when p.second is reachable from p.first.
So, not completely useless, IMO.
This is a good point, and I'm a big fan of expressivity and self-documenting code. iterator_range is a much better name for a range than "pair", and it's also good that iterator_range has only one template parameter for the type of iterator. I guess what turned me off of it was its bulkiness with all those methods sticking out of it in every direction.
Daniel, Wrt. the new range concepts, then I only changed those so they would match the new concept requirements, after the second version of the library took its form. I think that was the only sensible thing to do. best regards -Thorsten