Subject: Re: [boost] Is Boost.Range broken?
From: Dave Handley (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 20:53:39
David Abraham wrote:
<big snip - cos I can't be bothered with this thread any more>
>
> Okay, but should they both be in Boost, now that the damage is done?
> I'm not sure that's the right answer either. And, by the way, I'm not
> saying it's the wrong answer; I'm saying I haven't been convinced in
> either direction.
>
> If Tom isn't prepared to accept using boost::old_iterator_range instead
> of boost::iterator_range, we have to break a bunch of other peoples'
> code, which seems worse to me. Then both groups of users will have been
> disrupted. If Tom *is* prepared to use boost::old_iterator_range, IMO
> it may as well be tom::iterator_range: we don't have to have this
> component in Boost at all, except as an example along with the change
> notes that tell you how to write a component with the old behavior if
> you need it.
>
It is absolutely clear from this post that you are missing the entire point.
I've tried to cover the point from about 3 different directions, and each
time you get bogged down in something off-topic. I'll give up, and in the
process give up on using boost.range. It's rather pointless to use a
library where you can have no confidence in functionality changing
underneath you, and principles being different to the documentation.
Dave