"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote in message news:cmrj00$ck1$1@sea.gmane.org... | see it working for me here. - I don't remember the details. The extreme | rigor and formality of the new boost itertator was both a curse and a | blessing. Making the "dataflow" iterators seemingly harder to make. But | all the compositions (some fairly deep) worked as expected with no | debugging. I'm extremely interested in seeing this idea explored more in | the future. | | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> wrote in message | news:cmrgnj$6lu$1@sea.gmane.org... | | > If you are going to convince me iterators are easy to use, you have to | come up | > with something better than | > Seriously, this is so ugly and hard to write that I predict less than 1% | of | > the community will ever use it. | | LOL- I think just the opposite. I guess its in the eye of the beholder. | The funnest part of this is that I specifically crafted the code to permit | exactly this syntax. I'm amazed there there exists even one person that has | a negative reaction to it. Its immensly intriguing to me that we can have | exact opposite reactions to this. I'll be curious to hear what others | think. Here's my general take on it: iterators are important and useful as the lower-level infrastructure. iterators are, however, not too user-friendly; the user-friendly interface can be build on top so easy task becomes , well, easy. and that is the purpose of ranges and johns range library. without a good iterator library underneith ranges where hard to craft, but now that we have a good iterator library, we should persue higher abstractions -Thorsten