On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Yep. Here is the wording that we approved today: > [snip] > > Nice. Thank you. > But now I'm a bit concerned about the complexity of this issue. Mind > me, I think that this solution is nice, but maybe it is a burden for > library implementors. > > Let's say that I want to imitate 'exactly' the behavior of the > range-for, but with a plain old for (there are plenty of reasons for > that):
I'd be interested to know those reasons. (Not that we're going to change range-based for at this point, but maybe we can have a better understanding of its ramifications.) -- James
