Subject: Re: [Boost-users] cycle iterators
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-01 10:37:51
AMDG
er wrote:
> Neal Becker wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Not if the iterator is default constructed and later assigned, at
> least the last time I checked. I've modified your file here that
> corrects this problem:
> https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/statistics/iterator/
What does the default constructor have to do with it?
The templated assignment operator is not strictly needed
because of the implicit conversion. Also, the enable_if you
put on it is wrong.
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe