Sylvain Pion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm guessing "..." is something like, "if default-constructed standard >> container iterators were non-singular and guaranteed to be unequal to >> any iterator obtained by other means". > > That would be something more like "if default-constructed standard container > iterators were non-singular and guaranteed to be unequal to any iterator > obtained by other means, and compare equal to any default-constructed > iterator."
That sounds roughly correct. > I.e. the default constructed value must be unique (as far as operator== is > concerned). Yep. >> At the same time, I doubt it belongs in our proposal: we don't say >> anything about containers (except vector<bool>, and then only in the >> rationale). You should write a proposal for extension and submit it >> to the commitee if you care about this. It should be easy, compared >> to the iterator adaptors/categories proposal. > > OK. I'll think about writing something. I suggest that you think about proposing modifications to the container requirements table (table 65 in 23.1), rather than trying to use the wording above. It's just a hunch, but I think that would be the cleanest way to do it. Good luck, -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
