Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 12:58:54
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 1:37 AM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Sat Nov 22 2008, Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard-AT-ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>> iterator_range (which is nothing more than a fancy std::pair, I never
>> found the use of it myself)
>
> It's a bit less redundant to write the type name, since both members of
> the pair have to be the same, and it has a little more communicative power,
> since after all pair<Iter,Iter> doesn't have to represent a range; it
> has only been retroactively adapted to model Range when p.second is
> reachable from p.first.
>
> So, not completely useless, IMO.
This is a good point, and I'm a big fan of expressivity and
self-documenting code. iterator_range is a much better name for a
range than "pair", and it's also good that iterator_range has only one
template parameter for the type of iterator. I guess what turned me
off of it was its bulkiness with all those methods sticking out of it
in every direction.
Daniel Walker