On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:06 AM, David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
At Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:50:29 +0100, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 11/10/2010 16:37, David Abrahams wrote:
and ideas about whether there is sufficient interest in the alternative to iterators for me to develop them. The intent would be to submit both the alternative to iterators and the SIMD helpers to Boost.
Now that your misconceptions about segmented iterators are cleared up, could you give a brief rundown of your alternative and its advantages? If all I have to do is read your earlier post and ignore claims of broken compatibility, just say so, but I don't want to waste time trying to decipher it if it's substantially wrong.
Here, I will only be talking of the full generator I described in that other thread, not the step one.
It's push instead of pull, basically.
- It's a very simple, easy-to-grasp concept, it's basically just allowing ranges to define their own for_each (I use an output iterator in my example, but it's not really different from a function object)
Nice for very linear things. Not so great for sort, binary_search, reverse, rotate, ...
Please please please, if you're going to attempt a better alternative for iterators, read "The essence of the Iterator pattern" [1] (or [2] for an updated version) and the important work on idioms[3] that it references. I wish I had more time to spend on this effort, but needless to say the tough semantic work has already been done! Thanks David A. for pointing out there was a semantics discussion going on here. David [1] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.103.7480 [2] http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/jeremy.gibbons/publications/iterator.pdf [3] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.22 -- David Sankel Sankel Software www.sankelsoftware.com