David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.aau.dk> writes:
then what about the following:
Returns:
x.first if x is an std::pair x if x is an array range_begin(x) if range_begin() can be found by ADL x.begin() otherwise
?
that would be an improvement. I think you need "otherwise," at the beginning of all lines of the 2nd column but the first.
like so x.first if x is an std::pair, otherwise x if x is an array, otherwise range_begin(x) if range_begin() can be found by ADL, otherwise x.begin() ? I personally think having one "otherwise" is ok. lot's of math do it like that.
Nitpicking,
range_begin(x) if range_begin() can be found by ADL
is not quite right. I think it's more like
range_begin(x) if range_begin(x) is well-formed in an arbitrary namespace.
but I'm not certain I have that right either.
hm...what about if range_begin() can be found in namespaces associated with x. OTOH, isn't that just ADL?
Are you really detecting whether range_begin can be found via ADL?
No.
I wrote code to do that trick, but I don't remember seeing it in the range lib.
Cool trick, though. The suggested spec. says that the return-type depends on 4 cases, it doesn't state how these cases are implemented. I don't think they need to state that. -Thorsten