"Neal Becker" <ndbecker2@verizon.net> wrote in message news:cn3o25$ml6$1@sea.gmane.org... | Thorsten Ottosen wrote: | | > "Neal D. Becker" <ndbecker2@verizon.net> wrote in message | > | In this case, I'd say it's a net loss. | > | > Sorry, could you elaborate on what the loss is? Using a new iterable range | > concept we can say | > | > sub_range<const in_cont> r( in ); | > for( ; r; ++r ) { ... } | > | | I'm confused. We are talking about http://www.torjo.com/rangelib/? I can't | find any mention of the above "sub_range" in the zip I grabbed from that | site. yeah, sorry. sub_range is in boost.range, not in John's lib. But it dosn't change anything, just think of irange or ctange. So again, what is the "net loss"? | Don't know what you mean by "in terms of". I'm thinking that we want | algorithms to use ranges for interfaces, like the example I gave of | "algorithm" above. Internally, algorithm could use range if it is | convenient, like if we could pass to rng::transform, but in general, | iterators might be necessary. Is this what you mean? well, sort of. an underlying implementation in terms of iterators is always necessary. -Thorsten