11 May
2005
11 May
'05
1:52 p.m.
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Anthony Williams" <anthony_w.geo@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:k6m6f12b.fsf@yahoo.com...
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote in message
I think that the benefits of not having to include <iterator> and confining this to a pure core extension not requiring library support outweigh the costs.
Agreed. I like the idea of this being essentially a rewrite-rule. If it calls free functions rather than member functions it starts to depend on what headers have been included, which seems rather fragile.
in what way is it fragile?
The meaning of the language construct for( type i: expr ) changes based on what overloads are visible. This is relatively uncommon for C++.