From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-04 12:04:34
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>> I guess the design could havebeen that way; but we don't say
>>> container< const T >::iterator to get container<T>::const_iterator.
>>
>> Isn't range_iterator<R>::type the iterator type of the range R?
>
> Yes, in a world where iterator and const_iterator are distinguished. [...]
My question is to be read as follows:
Is it not the design intent of range_iterator<R>::type to give the iterator
type of the range R, so that I can write:
template<class R> void f( R & r )
{
typename range_iterator<R>::type i = r.begin();
}
and hence, is it not perfectly logical for it to return C::const_iterator
for R == C const?
It was meant to support your point.