Hi,
From: Spencer Collyer
If I read your suggestion right, you are thinking that we could replace the bounds policy with one of your constrained types? Because of the need to reserve the one-past-the-end value for the end() iterator, I'm not sure that would be feasible. We need to be able to store the one-past-the-end value but not allow the user to specify it as a valid subscript.
Does that make sense?
If I understand you correctly, you want the lower bound to be included in the allowed range, but the upper bound to be excluded. If so, then the Constrained Types library allows for such one-side-opened ranges (I hope I express myself precisely enough, I don't know math english that well ;-). However, there may be a problem - the library is designed to work only with random access iterators. Does your library use random access iterators only or any kind of iterator is allowed? Best regards, Robert