David Abrahams wrote:
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey@aixigo.de> writes:
Incidentally, it's almost always possible to detect whether the first argument supports operator += or operator-=. That might be a good way to decide whether to advance/regress it.
If is_iterator yields false
There is no is_iterator trait AFAIK. And I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting something more like is_+=able and is_-=able traits.
this is good to distinguish the rest,
Sorry, during shortening my previous mail before posting, one sentence got lost :) I was suggesting to add is_iterator, because if it yields true we should IMHO use std::advance. Only if it yields false, we should use your suggestion to distinguish +=able types from ++able types to use an efficient O(1)-implementation when possible, an O(n)-implementation otherwise.
yes. But the first question is, whether we want to enhance the 2-arg version of next/prior or if we simply rename them to e.g. advanced/regressed. I'd be happy with the latter. Comments?
I find those names rather awful for functions; no offense intended.
No problem, the names are not important. The important part is, whether we want to make the 2-arg version iterator-only. Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey@aixigo.de, web: http://www.aixigo.de