| > hm...empty() is O(N) for strings if implemented as end() - begin(), but | > O(1) currently. | | What kind of string doesn't have random-access iterators? Or are you | talking about C-strings which would have an O(N) end() function? yes. | I am leery of performance discontinuities like O(N) for end(char | const*). Maybe it just shouldn't be provided (or something). Pavol uses it havily in his string library. The "dangerous" thing would be not to put computation of the end-iterator out-side the loop, eg. for( iterator_type_of<T>::type i = begin( c ); i != end( c ); ... ) ^^^^^^^^^^ ^ is not good. But one wouldn't do that anyway. And if one did it, what are the chances of the argument being a char*? br Thorsten