Is the Standard Proposal For New-Style Iterators as mentioned on
Boost.Iterators (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_45_0/libs/iterator/
doc/new-iter-concepts.html) going to make it to the new standard or
not? Where are formal documents regarding this issue?

Adam Badura


--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

On 2011-02-11 15:13:44 -0500, Adam Badura said:

> Is the Standard Proposal For New-Style Iterators as mentioned on
> Boost.Iterators (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_45_0/libs/iterator/
> doc/new-iter-concepts.html) going to make it to the new standard or
> not? Where are formal documents regarding this issue?
>

No, this code is not in the new standard. It was proposed for TR1, but
the committee decided that it was too complicated to standardize at
that time. In large part, that complexity comes from trying to build a
new form of iterator on top of the existing ones. C++0x adopts the
underlying concepts of this proposal, but doesn't try to supply
adaptors to make new iterators out of old. That's an advantage over the
TR1 proposal; since TR1 was restricted to library changes, the proposal
couldn't rewrite the fundamental definitions of iterators; C++0x does
not have that constraint, and the result is much simpler than the
original proposal.

--
  Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

> No, this code is not in the new standard. It was proposed for TR1, but
> the committee decided that it was too complicated to standardize at
> that time. In large part, that complexity comes from trying to build a
> new form of iterator on top of the existing ones. C++0x adopts the
> underlying concepts of this proposal, but doesn't try to supply
> adaptors to make new iterators out of old. That's an advantage over the
> TR1 proposal; since TR1 was restricted to library changes, the proposal
> couldn't rewrite the fundamental definitions of iterators; C++0x does
> not have that constraint, and the result is much simpler than the
> original proposal.

What do you mean by "C++0x adopts the underlying consepts of this
proposal" if you already wrote "No, this code is not in the new
standard."? And are there any documents which can be read by public
audience to see what is being done in this area and to trace the
progress?


--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]