This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Patch] First bits of the algo merge
Howard Hinnant wrote:
> Ah ok. I'm coming around. Just had to step out and jump-start my
> brain is all. ;-)
>
> Imho, and as far as I know for now, B and C are both better than A
> from the viewpoint of supporting proxy iterators (which can be
> conforming input iterators). B is better than C from a maintenance
> and reliability point of view (gets rid of source code duplication,
> halving the chance for bugs). If no one can show that B is worse
> than C from a conformance, or even usability point of view, then I
> think B is the clear winner. However it would be irresponsible of me
> to not try and discredit B. But unfortunately I have a bias that I
> hope I can't, as I think its other advantages over C are
> significant. I will do my best to not let my bias get in the way of
> my research.
Ok, 100% agreed. And, sorry, I didn't get immediately your, Popperian I
would call it, or scientific, spirit in trying to prove B wrong ;)
> But since you asked for other improvement ideas... ;-)
>
> Just kidding. I've probably done enough damage for one day, at least
> in this area. I am about to suggest a tiny patch in a different
> area... (stdexcept for the incurably curious).
Looking forward...
Paolo.