David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That's fine with me - that requirement was a source of bugs in my >> code and violated the rule of least astonishment as far as I was >> concerned. >> >> But before I remove the test from the filesystem library that verifies >> the old input iterator semantics for directory_iterator, I'd like to >> verify that the omission of *r++ was a design decision rather than an >> oversight. >> >> The omission of special requirements for *r++ means that Readable and >> Single Pass = Input, as shown in the diagram, is not actually correct, >> unless I'm missing something. Thus perhaps it should be discussed in >> the paper. > > A single-pass iterator is required to support r++ (inherited from the > incrementable iterator requirements), but I guess that we've > unintentionally dropped the requiremnt for *r++ of readable > single-pass iterator, by allowing incrementable iterators to return > any type convertible to const X&. I think it should require that the > return type be X, the Assertion/Note/Precondition/Postcondition column > should be labelled "Operational Semantics" and the lower right entry > should be moved to the middle column. The same goes for the > lower-right entry of each of the following two tables. > > I'm going to make those changes; if there are objections, please let > me know ASAP.
Done. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
