On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Tomas Puverle < Tomas.Puverle@morganstanley.com> wrote:
[Re-post to the correct thread.]
Too bad, and just when I thought we were getting down to brass tacks. Well, maybe Tom would care to weigh in on these issues; I'm still making an effort to figure out how best to resolve them.
I have been absolutely swamped in the last two days and will not have the time to write up any responses until much later today. Having said that, do you think it's worth my time? It doesn't seem really like we're getting anywhere.
I would like to encourage you to post so that as those of us attempting to resolve the remaining issues can be as confident as possible that the conclusion would be one with which you would be satisified. My own involvement will simply be to ensure that RangeEx is 100% compatible with whatever changes occur to Boost.Range. Haing read this thread carefully I am confident that many Boost contributors have listened to your comments and have immediately begun to address the short-term and longer-term issues. I fully expect to have an "old behaviour" class to compliment iterator_range ready for the vault within a week or two. Your email gives the impression that somehow the response has been unsatisfactory. What is it that you additionally expect to occur? Regards, Neil Groves
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost