25 Nov
2008
25 Nov
'08
3:30 p.m.
Tomas Puverle skrev:
If the compromise does not include going back to the old behavior for boost::iterator_range, then I'm open to suggestions
(Joke intended) This really doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a "compromise". Just sounds like you're getting your way.
Why? I'm open to including a new class with the old behavior, even though I think it has little purpose. Wha compromise did you have in mind? -Thorsten