Re: [Patch] First bits of the algo merge

[chris jefferson <caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk>]

Howard Hinnant wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Then this proxy iterator doesn't work, so we aren't breaking anything
>> that worked before...
>
> Right.
>
>> Like I said, I don't /think/ you'll fail any conformance tests with
>> this one.  But you may alienate a customer or two.
>
> This should be considered an extension.  If we don't want to extend
> functionality in this way, that's cool too.  Just if we want to, this
> is how it might be done.
>
Ah, thats cool. I thought the problem was that doing this kind of thing
at all would break things which worked before. Expanding it to work on
even more things is of course fine :)

The only (tiny) thing that worries me is that I have come across code
where people have defined their own iterator classes, and either
incorrectly, or not at all defined iterator::value_type, and this is
going to break their code. Of course we can just tell them to learn to
write iterators correctly.

Chris