On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:20 PM, Tomas Puverle <Tomas.Puverle@morganstanley.com> wrote:
"Thorsten Ottosen" <thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> wrote in message news:492C7337.5090800@dezide.com...
David Abrahams skrev:
on Mon Nov 24 2008, "Tomas Puverle" <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> wrote:
If you really like the abstraction, there's no reason you can't use toms::iterator_range instead of the one in Boost. That would surely induce far less churn and instability in your codebase.
Perhaps it's better that we go forward and invest the effort in
1) Making sure that some of the Range concepts get fixed
What is broken?
From my personal perspective, I would like to see some of the assertions removed from iterator_range. I believe that in principle you and others agree with this point.
It seems some other people on this thread have also expressed their concern about how the concepts defined during the review have changed.
When we use the term "concept", we're referring to a specific convention for abstraction in the generic programming paradigm. See the introduction to the original STL. http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/stl_introduction.html However, my favorite introduction of all time for generic programming is Chapter 2 of Jeremy Siek, et. al. The Boost Graph Library. That book changed my life. :) Daniel Walker