On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > Boost.Range is a library component. True, but should it ever make its way to the standard library, it would be good if it is consistent with the 'range' used by the range-for. If not, we will have two subtly different definitions of 'range' in the language.
> If "as it is specified in this thread" you mean option 5, Yes. Exactly that. > 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? Well, I am suggesting a ISO C++ library function with the exact semantics from option 5: namespace std { pair<IT, IT> range(T &t); } Being IT the same type deduced by the range-for iterator. The return value would be a pair, being the first value the begin iterator and the second value the end. I think that one function returning a pair instead of two functions is better, as the 'special semantics' of the range-for, as it is in 'Option 5', imply both begin and end together. >> 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. I'm merely implying that this list is suitable for this discussion. It looked like you disagree. Regards. -- Rodrigo