"Fredrik Blomqvist" <fredrik_blomqvist@home.se> writes:
Vladimir Prus wrote:
Fredrik Blomqvist wrote:
Wouldn't it be convenient if iterator_adaptor provided a protected "self typedef" for use by client code? In particular I'm thinking of the constructor case that basically always is feeding an iterator to the iterator_adaptor baseclass, thus needing its explicit type. (In most examples and tests this typedef is manually created as a 'super_t' for example).
Having a predefined type would reduce the amount of boilerplate code and the risk of getting out-of-sync with the declaration. I suggest a name something like 'iterator_adaptor_t' instead of 'super_t' to lessen name-clash possibility.
I'm not sure this is going to work:
template<class T> class yours : public iterator_facade<T, ...> { public: yours(.....) : super_t(.......) { } };
When compiler parses the above, name lookup does not use the scope of iterator_facade, so no matter what's typedefed there, 'super_t' won't be found.
Initially I had similar thoughts but since it compiled (and worked ok) in VC7.1 I figured it might be legal and would be a neat improvement.
It ain't. But what you _can_ do is: derived(T const& v) : derived::super_t(v) {} I'm afraid that not every compiler supports that either, but I'm not certain. It's an interesting thought. I'll put it in the queue of iterator library issues I'm working on. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com