Daniel Walker wrote:
In general, no, but in this specific instance, yes. At least, the Range concept definitions in the initial release immediately following the formal review are richer and more useful, IMHO, than the definitions available in the current release.
I spent some time with the archives this evening, and I find that there are dozens of emails from 2005, 2006, and 2007 talking about problems with the concept definitions and documentation in the original version of the range library. I also found a couple of different threads where Thorsten requested advice on potential changes to the library, and where he announced breaking changes to the library as a result of those conversations. This does not include finding any statements about changing the behavior of is_singular(), but those changes may have been made when he was making other, announced breaking changes. (I would have to study the check in information to find this out, and I haven't this evening.) So, though you may have preferred the old concepts, others thought them fatally flawed (and I find their arguments persuasive). This is not to say that I think the changes that started this thread were made properly. I can find no discussion on the developer list or note in the documentation about the changes happening, and I think that is a minimal standard for breaking changes. However, they may have been part of a redesign that was precipitated by conversations on the developer list, and other parts of that work were announced and discussed on the list. This would imply that Thorsten was closer to an acceptable process than he is currently getting credit for. John