On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, David Abrahams wrote: > Douglas Paul Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, David Abrahams wrote: > >> AFAICT it > >> doesn't solve the problem that Andrei was pointing at. > > > > You mean the front/pop_front issue? > > No, I mean the complexity-of-expression issue.
Hmmm, I don't see how that issue applies. STL users know how to write function objects. It's not a gigantic leap to write function objects with a templated function call operator (at least, it isn't if you've already decided to play with template metaprogramming). The rest of the syntax is inherited from STL. I don't see any extra complexity here. Granted, it means pulling in a lot more code than Andrei's version, but as one who has written that same bit of code approximately a billion times I'm ready for a simple, familiar abstraction. > > Just stick your third-party iterators into sequence<> and you're all set; > > I'd expect that mpl::list, mpl::vector, etc. would just derive from > > mpl::sequence to reduce the amount of typing in the common case. > > Maybe it would be better to define namespace-scope begin(), end(), > et. al which can operate on STL and MPL sequences. I have two concerns with that: 1) begin and end are already class templates in MPL 2) There isn't much precedent for begin(container) and end(container); there is for container.begin() and container.end() Doug _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost