Revisions to iterator requirements - status?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Kevin McCarty, Sep 28, 2012.

  1. Hi clc++,

    Does anyone know anything about the status of the new iterator
    requirements that have been proposed, e.g. in N2758 / N2777 papers or
    at the Boost website [1], [2]? It looks like essentially nothing has
    happened with this since concepts were dropped from C++0x. Did folks
    give up?

    [1] http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/iterator/doc/new-iter-concepts.html
    [2] http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/iterator/doc/facade-and-adaptor.html

    The last paper I can find regarding changes to iterators for C++ 2011
    is N3066, which fixes some minor issues but in particular still does
    NOT allow for most random-access "transform" or "proxy" iterators. I
    also double-checked the latest standard draft N3337, and it looks like
    ForwardIterators still require that
    iterator_traits<ForwardIter>::reference is a real reference. (24.2.5,
    forward.iterators)

    It's rather disappointing that even in C++ 2011, I still can't legally
    define a random-access iterator class whose reference typedef (and
    return type of unary operator*()) is 'int' rather than 'const int &'.
    And indeed the standard still contradicts itself as to whether or not
    std::vector<bool>::iterator is random-access; this actual issue was
    mentioned in N3066 but it apparently did not propose a fix.

    Thanks in advance to anyone who has more information,
    - Kevin B. McCarty
    Kevin McCarty, Sep 28, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Just an Illusion

    VHDL revisions comparison

    Just an Illusion, Jun 30, 2004, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    546
    Arie Zychlinski
    Jun 30, 2004
  2. Will
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    367
    Paul Lutus
    Sep 2, 2004
  3. , India
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    238
    Öö Tiib
    May 10, 2010
  4. Matthew Wilson
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    255
    Martin v. Loewis
    May 11, 2010
  5. Sean Durkin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    742
    Sean Durkin
    Jul 19, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page