--- Comment #4 from Jonathan M Davis <> 2010-07-21 
19:57:42 PDT ---
Hmm. Well, it certainly _looks_ inefficient, but if it's not, all the better.
It would still be a bit ugly to have to code it that way though.

As for takeBack() being unimplementable... Couldn't popBack() be used to
construct a new range? Or does that not work? I haven't look at the source for
take(), but I would have half expected it to do something similar with
popFront(). What it is it about the back which would make it so much less
tractable than the front for non-random access ranges?

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to