"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes: | | > "Eyal Farago" <eyal.farago@actimize.com> wrote in message | > news:BC29F2A417B44F44BD3AA1AD9868CEDC034244@ilexchange.adrembi.com... | > | you can easily achieve this using (make_)transform_iterator and boost bind: [snip] | > well, I cannot use that when I want to write a manual loop. | > | > yes, it is simple, but also frequently used. And we also | > have to think about less experienced users IMO. | | Both of you make good points. There's a third point I should bring | up: Thorsten, your iterator isn't legal. Hint: what is the return | type of its operator++? yes, there are lots of trouple with it...for example, I don't think it is good to base it on the container type when basing it on an iterator type would be more flexible. | It has been pointed out that this sort of thing would be very much | easier if, like iterator_facade and iterator_adaptor, all the | specialized adapters could accept one more optional parameter that | specifies the most-derived iterator class. perhaps, but so much interested in the actual implementation...as a user I just wished the functionality was there to use...just like I don't have to code an indirect iterator, but can use boost::indirect_iterator. If there is agreement that the two iterators would be a good idea, I don't mind adding a proper implementation. -Thorsten