Thanks for the comments, just had a question about one of them…
Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 16/06/20 15:14 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>Martin Li?ka <mli...@suse.cz> writes:
>>> On 6/16/20 10:50 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Hmm, sounds like a nice abstraction but I see 2 problems with that:
>>>
>>> 1) How can I define a constructor of the iterator_pair when I need
>>> something like:
>>> iterator_pair<const_iterator> (region_begin, region_end)?
>>
>>Not sure if I'm answering the right question, sorry, but I meant
>>something along the lines of:
>>
>> template<typename T>
>> struct iterator_pair
>> {
>> public:
>> iterator_pair (const T &begin, const T &end)
>> : m_begin (begin), m_end (end) {}
>>
>> T begin () const { return m_begin; }
>> T end () const { return m_end; }
>>
>> private:
>> T m_begin;
>> T m_end;
>> };
>
> You could also add an "object generator" for that type:
>
> template<typename T>
> iterator_range<T>
> make_iterator_range(T begin, T end)
> {
> return iterator_range<T>(begin, end);
> }
>
> This deduces the type T from the function arguments, so will allow you
> to write:
>
> return make_iterator_range(x, y);
>
> instead of:
>
> return iterator_range<const_iterator>(x, y);
>
> i.e. you don't need to say <const_iterator> because the compiler can
> deduce it from the arguments.
In Martin's case the x and y arguments don't naturally have type
const_iterator, so I guess this would become:
return make_iterator_range (const_iterator (x), const_iterator (y));
Is that more idiomatic than:
return iterator_range<const_iterator> (x, y);
?
Richard
