Subject: Re: [boost] lifetime of ranges vs. iterators
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 19:46:39
on Wed Sep 03 2008, Arno Schödl <aschoedl-AT-think-cell.com> wrote:
>> > Using Arno's suggestion, dereferencing the end iterator
>> > ought to throw, which happens before we increment
>> > off the end, right?
>
>> The *underlying* iterator? How are you going to get that to throw if
>> it's a pointer?
>
> You don't need to. The underlying iterator can check explicitly.
A pointer can check explicitly?
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com