On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> But what is that `unified range concept'? And why do we need it? > See Boost.Range for the concept and possibly uses.
Boost.Range is a library component. > There has been some > discussion to accept it in the standard, IIRC. > >> Exactly. Which for me means, it must be simple. Simple to learn, >> simple to use, simple to teach. > The range-for as it is specified in this thread *is* simple to learn > use and teach. If "as it is specified in this thread" you mean option 5, yes I find it simple, which is why I recommended for my NB within WG21 to support it. If you meant something else, I'm less so sure. > Not so easy to implement, but not so hard either. > I am merely pointing out that strictly emulating the range-for > behavior is far from trivial. > >> BTW, if you are trying to change the specification is gcc-patches >> the appropriate place to discuss that? > I have no intention to specify anything, I'm just suggesting that it > would be nice to have a library function that does this. 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? > 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.
