I disagree. 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"). At Saturday 2004-06-05 22:12, you wrote:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uhdtpqogn.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
| > I'm not sure I understand. Could you give an example? | | It sounds like you're saying that algorithms that traffic in ranges | shouldn't also deal in iterators (I could be mistaken), but it seems | to me that for some algorithms (e.g. lower_bound), operating on a | range and returning an iterator is just right.
yeah, I'm saying that algorithms that traffic in ranges (eg vector<T>) and return iterator pairs should return
range< vector<T> >
and not
iterator_range< typename iterator_of< vector<T> >::type >
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"