From: MB (mb2act_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-02 11:28:47
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>It is possible to hook 'range_iterator' from user specializations?
>>
>> template< class T >
>> struct range_iterator<const T> : range_const_iterator<T> { };
>>
>>Fortunately, Boost.Range documentation doesn't say
>>'range_iterator< const Foo::Pair<T> >' must be specialized.
>>User 'range_iterator' specializations still work.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you explain?
Sorry, please forget this code. I was confused or drunken.
I had ever specialized 'range_iterator<const MyX>' to return "mutable" iterator,
before I removed it some time ago.
I see "range_iterator -> range_mutable_iterator" change
doesn't break any current user customizations.
Am I right?
>> From the point of client view,
>>I have never called 'range_iterator',
>>while I called 'range_result_iterator' 159 times.
>>
>>
>>As for 'range_result_iterator', there is no reason why it should be removed.
>>If it were removed, I would add just:
>>
>> // legacy name of range_iterator
>> template< class Range >
>> struct range_result_iterator : range_iterator<Range> { };
>
>
> right, this could be done to provide some form of backwards compatibility.
>
>
>>As for 'boost_range_begin', the change is rather dangerous.
>>Please do google "range_end".
>
>
> I don't get a lot of hits that uses range_end as a function.
If 'range_end' is a function, it is rather lucky.
Once "int range_end;" is defined, I think there is no workaround.
I read the long discussion why 'boost_range_begin' was born.
Did I overlook another discussion about the birth of 'range_begin'?
>>Thus, no problem breaks except for 'char*', doesn't it?
>>
>
>
> well,
>
> - char[N] returns the same as T[N]
> - range_iterator is named range_mutable_iterator.
>
>
>>>BTW: please use your real name when posting
>>
>>Formal rule?
>>If so, this should be the final post...
>
>
> I don't think so, but I like to know whom I'm speaking with.
Nice to meet you and the world.
Regards,
Shunsuke Sogame