on Tue Jul 19 2011, John Maddock <boost.regex-AT-virgin.net> wrote:
Actually, I'm thinking that the fix may be easier than I thought after all - if I add a 2-arg "range-checked" constructor as an overload, then the iterator's constructor can validate the end-points of the underlying sequence during construction,
Doesn't that make construction of an iterator over N bytes an O(N) operation?
and there's no need to otherwise change the implementation or add overhead by checking every increment/decrement for movement out-of-range because we'll know that it can't happen.
To be precise—I think—it can't happen unless the bytes in the underlying buffer are changed after construction. It's not *quite* the same guarantee, but it's probably good enough, and maybe even preferable. I would suggest that anyone needing the other kind of check adapt an underlying iterator that contains the check. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com