4 May
2005
4 May
'05
5:04 p.m.
David Abrahams wrote:
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
I guess the design could havebeen that way; but we don't say container< const T >::iterator to get container<T>::const_iterator.
Isn't range_iterator<R>::type the iterator type of the range R?
Yes, in a world where iterator and const_iterator are distinguished. [...]
My question is to be read as follows: Is it not the design intent of range_iterator<R>::type to give the iterator type of the range R, so that I can write: template<class R> void f( R & r ) { typename range_iterator<R>::type i = r.begin(); } and hence, is it not perfectly logical for it to return C::const_iterator for R == C const? It was meant to support your point.