Re: Andrei's "iterators must go" presentation
george.ryan@gmail.com wrote:
Idea of 'ranges' and how they can alleviate difficulties in using
iterators isn't new. Dietmar Kuehl spoke about them almost four years
ago.
There was a lot of good information there, thanks!
That was four years ago, so presumably the people who are on the
standards committee are well aware of the problems associated with
some of the STL's design. So why no 0x changes for some of these
issues?
Yes, those of us who are on the standards committee are well aware that
different designs have different strengths and weaknesses. Whether those
constitute problems is a matter of judgment and perspective. Also, note
that Andrei's paper starts from a fundamental misunderstanding of the
STL design. It's not "iterators = gcd(containers, algorithms)". It's
"iterators = gcd(sequences, algorithms)". Unfortunately, this is a very
common mistake.
If you have a list of things you think are problems you might check the
current working draft to see whether they've been addressed before
asserting "no 0x changes". In particular, look at the Range concept and
range-based for loops.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of
"The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference"
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]