On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Rodrigo Rivas
<rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> Boost.Range is a library component.
> True, but should it ever make its way to the standard library, it
You were earlier talking about some "unified concept"; weren't you?
Now, it is shifting to library component.
> would be good if it is consistent with the 'range' used by the
> range-for. If not, we will have two subtly different definitions of
> 'range' in the language.
Is that a GCC issue or a C++ issue?
>> If "as it is specified in this thread" you mean option 5,
> Yes. Exactly that.
Option 5 does not say that we have to have a library
that exactly emulates what is in in the core language.
>
>> If you are going to do then you are going to specify that function
>> before you implement it. Are you suggesting that as an ISO C++
>> library function or a GNU extension?
>
> Well, I am suggesting a ISO C++ library function with the exact
> semantics from option 5:
if is an ISO C++ library, then the proper place is a ISO C++ committee forum.
> namespace std {
> pair<IT, IT> range(T &t);
> }
> Being IT the same type deduced by the range-for iterator. The return
> value would be a pair, being the first value the begin iterator and
> the second value the end.
> I think that one function returning a pair instead of two functions is
> better, as the 'special semantics' of the range-for, as it is in
> 'Option 5', imply both begin and end together.
>
>>> And this is not gcc-patches@ but gcc@: "Anything relevant to the
>>> development or testing of GCC and not covered by other mailing lists
>>> is suitable for discussion here."
>> you are right this is "gcc@". I am not sure you what you imply by the rest.
> I'm merely implying that this list is suitable for this discussion. It
> looked like you disagree.
yes, I do. Because what you are suggesting is a change to the
the ISO C++ definition. This isn't the proper place for that.
