From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-16 00:49:26
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:uk6uvhw8w.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| > > I wonder whether it's better to say
| > >
| > > cbegin(x)
| > >
| > > or
| > >
| > > begin(as_const(x))
| > >
| > > The latter is certainly more general.
| > >
| >
| > It's more general but it has a big usability issue: it's hard for me
| > to find a rationale that I can get a reverse_iterator by calling
| > "rbegin" but have to apply something to the container to get a
| > const_iterator.
| >
| > Whatever the best solution is, there should be the same concept for
| > const and reverse for the user!
|
| Just because the original designers made the mistake of building in
| rbegin() and rend() accessors, it doesn't mean we should perpetuate
| the same mistake for consistency.
no, not necessarily
| Orthogonality is better.
as_const() woul be othogonal to begin(), rbegin(), but there is a clear
difference between changing constness
and changing traversal direction.
The only "mistake" of rbegin() is that is it member even though it does not
have to be.
br
Thorsten