I notice that the April 95 DWP, in its description of iterators, explicitly
describes operator*(), but not operator->().  In looking over the docs for
Rogue Wave's new STL implementation, I note that they do define operator->()
i.e. i->m for certain iterator classes as being equivalent to (*i).m.
Is this something that's been added to the standard since the DWP?

Related question... is an HTML DWP newer than April 95 available
anywhere?

Thanks,

--
James H. Garrison         << NR Engr Support - Communications >>
Tandem Computers, Inc     Phone ................. (512) 432-8455
LOC 116, Rm 1475          Fax ................... (512) 432-2118
14231 Tandem Blvd         Internet .......... jhg@isd.tandem.com
Austin, TX 78728-6699     Guardian ......... SMTPGATE(jhg@tzone)


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

In <9604271615.AA0080@perseus> Jim Garrison              512-432-8455     <jhg@mpd.tandem.com> writes:

>I notice that the April 95 DWP, in its description of iterators, explicitly
>describes operator*(), but not operator->().  In looking over the docs for
>Rogue Wave's new STL implementation, I note that they do define operator->()
>i.e. i->m for certain iterator classes as being equivalent to (*i).m.
>Is this something that's been added to the standard since the DWP?

 Since my operator-> proposal* has purportedly been accepted by
 the ANSI/ISO C++ comittee, I would fully expect that STL
 containers should have operator-> in them.

 *See: http://www.best.com/~pjl/resume/lucasprop.html for details
 on the proposal.

 - Paul J. Lucas
   NASA Ames Research Center  Caelum Research Corporation
   Moffett Field, California  Mountain View, California


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: try just posting with      ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

In article <4mb8v7$g2t@onramp.arc.nasa.gov> pjl@ptolemy-ethernet.arc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Lucas) writes:

>  Since my operator-> proposal* has purportedly been accepted by
>  the ANSI/ISO C++ comittee, I would fully expect that STL
>  containers should have operator-> in them.

The January WP does have operator-> both in the list of iterator
requirements (section 24.1, [lib.iterator.requirements]) and as part
of each predefined iterator.
--
Matt Austern
SGI: MTI Compilers Group
austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]