30 Oct
2007
30 Oct
'07
8 p.m.
shunsuke skrev:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
It seems a rational idea; "NVI" is always better. nvi?
Non-Virtual Interface. Say, Non-Specializable-Metafunction in this context? :-)
BTW, why not remove range_size<> from RandomAccessConcept, which is utterly useless, and even wrong around iterator range. I'm all for removing it.
Why do you think it's wrong?
`boost::size(make_iterator_range(...))` would copy range_difference<...>::type into std::size_t.
If the requirent is that the secnd iterator is reachable from the first, there is no problem.
boost::make_unsigned<> might help, but anyway it is unneeded to force range_size<> specialization.
I think I agree. Do anybody what to argue for inclusion of range_size<> in the concept? -Thorsten