From: nbecker_at_[hidden]
Date: 2002-02-05 11:31:41
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Witt <witt_at_[hidden]> writes:
Thomas> On Tuesday 05 February 2002 16:37, you wrote:
>> In increment:
>>
>> if( ++x.base() == m_bounds.second )
>> x.base() = m_bounds.first;
>>
>>
>> Since m_bounds.second is not included in the range, shouldn't that be:
>>
>> if( x.base()++ == m_bounds.second )
>> x.base() = m_bounds.first;
>>
Thomas> I don't think so. AFAICS
Thomas> if( x.base()++ == m_bounds.second )
Thomas> would not prevent us fom incrementing the end iterator.
Thomas> It is
Thomas> if( ++x.base() == m_bounds.second )
Thomas> x.base() = m_bounds.first;
Thomas> because m_bounds.second is not included in the range so we have to make
Thomas> sure base does not point to m_bounds.second.
Thomas> As I am writing this: If you question was should m_bounds.second be a valid
Thomas> position for the cyclic iterator? I think no. To me providing a half open
Thomas> range to the policies constructor is the right way to go. Otherwise we would
Thomas> surely confuse users.
No, m_bounds.second should not be a valid position. That's why you
need to check after you increment, not before, right?