Thorsten Ottosen writes:
I have planned to add a few extra convenience function to iterator_range and sub_range. Some people have said the classes could have been a little easier to use. The changes I suggest are the following:
iterator_range: --------------
value_type& front() const; value_type& back() const; value_type& operator[]( size_type ) const;
Assuming that 'operator[]' is provided only for Random Access iterators, the above three are very reasonable.
value_type& at( size_type ) const;
Is it a checked version of 'operator[]'?
void advance( size_type ); void narrow( size_type left, size_type right ); iterator_range& operator++(); value_type& operator*() const;
Please NO. 'narrow' can be a freestanding utility function, and the rest is at best a questionable "convenience" baggage with no value for generic code. Also, think "standardization". -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering