24 Nov
2008
24 Nov
'08
2:43 p.m.
on Mon Nov 24 2008, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com> wrote:
I'm fine with having a non-deprecated boost::range<T> with the old behavior. I don't know if there is concensus for this?
I'm totally fine with it, except for the name. I would prefer to keep the name "range" in namespace boost usable for something that isn't considered a dead end or a design mistake. I guess it's a testament to the weirdness of the old design that I can't think of a good descriptive name. boost::nonsigular_range comes to mind, except of course anything that invalidates its contained iterators (e.g. throwing out the underlying container) makes it singular again. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com