On 8/12/2011 3:25 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
On 8/12/2011 2:50 PM, Eric Niebler wrote:
On 8/11/2011 10:26 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
I reverted to the original implementation but used advance<begin, size-1> instead of prior. pop_back_iterator is an unwieldy hack and while it might be fixable, I am not sure if its CT cost outweigh the CT cost of simply using advance<begin, size-1>.
Yowsa! That instantiates O(N) templates for what should be an O(1) operation. I say leave it as prior until we can think of something better.
Yeah, you are right. Reverted for now. Alas, the tests will fail, but anyway, I think I know a good strategy to make it work.
Back on track. Now my code is working fine again. All your test code pass just fine. I think I got it right this time. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://boost-spirit.com