From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-17 07:14:44
Fredrik Blomqvist wrote:
>
> Ah, well, my intention wasn't really to focus on transform_iterator,
> I just used it as an example.
Yes, I know. Me too.
> Although I can see that you're right
> about it not being in sync with it's documentation.
> My point was that default-constructability would make creating _any_
> kind of adaptor based on bind/mem_fn easier and more flexible.
I'm not sure I agree. Adding a default constructor that may create a
singular object is, in my experience, a design mistake. Any component that
requires such a constructor is broken. The main purpose of this constructor
(again, IME) is to allow you to shoot yourself in the foot, as is frequently
the case with the iterators.