Subject: Re: [Boost-users] cycle iterators
From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-31 20:59:09
er wrote:
> I'm not sure if I already asked in a private conversion, but even if I
> did, this the occasion to ask again : why not have an assignment
> operator for cycle_iterator? I think the base iterator could be replaced
> by that which is contained in super_t.
Would not the default compiler-generated assignment operator work?