From: Matthew Wilson (stlsoft_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-20 05:35:44
> The idea I am pushing for here is that ranges ARE NOT pairs of iterators.
> Rather, a pair of iterators happens to make a good representation of a
> range, but may not be the only one.
Yes, I heartily agree.
(As I said in a previous post) I think the fundamentals of a range support
should facilitate the following:
some_range_type r(. . .);
for(; r; ++r)
{
*r; // Do something with the current position
}
This is very general, and therefore very powerful.
But to support such a "pure" range concept, we'd need mechanisms by which
those ranges that are implemented-in-terms-of iterators can use the standard
algorithms, whilst pure ranges use range-specific algorithms. I've not yet
considered whether the full gamut of current algorithms can be supported in
pure range form, though.
Matthew