At Monday 2004-06-07 07:26, you wrote:
"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> wrote in message news:6.1.0.6.2.20040607070211.0486b980@mail.rudbek.com... | I disagree.
with what? It's hard to know when you top-post :-(
| specifically I belive we should take the time to write the syntactic sugar | which allows ALL of the current algorithms to accept range<>s (that's the | plural of range<>, not some variable "s").
I can't figure out what that has to do with the discussion :-) I too like range version of std::copy() etc. To recap, I'm saying
pair<iterator,iterator> foo( iterator, iterator );
in its range version should be
range< Range > foo( Range& );
Range foo(Range const&); // is perhaps this what you meant? or perhaps: Range foo(Range); I'm somewhat confused as I'd expected typedef pair<iterator, iterator> Range; to be the definition preceding your declaration of foo(...); I'm not sure what a range<Range> would be
and not
iterator_range< typename iterator_of<Range>::type > foo( Range& );
Pavol disagrees, that makes the situation a 1 against 1 until other people start having an opinion.
br
Thorsten
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"