Mark Brown wrote:
Attached is my first attempt at a patch implementing these functions. Please 
let me know if I've missed something. The ChangeLong entry is here:

Sorry Mark but the patch got stripped again.

Martin


2007-03-13  Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

        STDCXX-335
        * map (cbegin, cend, crbegin, crend): Implemented new accessor 
functions.
        * set: Same.
        * string: Same.
        * vector: Same.
        * deque: Same.
        * list: Same.

-- Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:12:09 -0800
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: new container member functions cbegin() and cend()

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:44:49 -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: new container member functions cbegin() and cend()

Mark Brown wrote:
The next C++ standard adds a couple of new container member functions,
cbegin() and cend(), that will make it easier to retrieve const
iterators from non-const container objects. Are there any plans to add
these functions to stdcxx?
I assume you're referring to the Working Draft of the Standard for
Programming Language C++:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2134.pdf

and the functions are those proposed in Walter Brown's Proposal
to Improve const_iterator Use from C++0X:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1674.pdf
Yes, the functions from Alternative 1 are the ones I was referring
to. They will become especially handy when the "auto" feature is
available in compilers. Does anyone know of a compiler that
supports this use of auto?

I have no immediate plans to implement these functions but we
certainly expect and plan to implement the new C++ standard by
the time it comes out.

If you would like to submit a patch with these functions or any
other feature that's expected to be in the next standard you
are most welcome to do so. Small extensions like this one might
be okay for trunk. Bigger features will probably be more
appropriate for a yet-to-be created branch as suggested in
STDCXX-299: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-299
I will work on a patch.

-- Mark

Martin

-- Mark


Reply via email to