"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote in message news:002001c55630$afeeaa00$6801a8c0@pdimov... | 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++. the meaning of for( const auto& r : make_range( expr ) ) would also change depending on what overloads that are visible. so I'm still not getting what "fragile" means. -Thorsten