This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [C++0x] Range-based for statements and ADL


On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Rodrigo Rivas
<rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <gdr@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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]