Is iterator_facade still relevant in C++11, C++17?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is iterator_facade still relevant in C++11, C++17?

Boost - Users mailing list
Hi,

This is a bit theoretical question, but I'd like to collect some opinions.

Considering sequence of C++ versions, around where, if at all,
boost::iterator_facade shines less and becomes less relevant?

In other words:
- If you had to implement iterators in C++11, would you use it?
- If you had to implement iterators in C++17, would you use it?

Has anyone observed performance issues when using iterator_facade?

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is iterator_facade still relevant in C++11, C++17?

Boost - Users mailing list
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 2:00 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...would you use it?

Never again. Howard told me so, and I agreed.

Thanks
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is iterator_facade still relevant in C++11, C++17?

Boost - Users mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Users mailing list
I believe Zach Laine's library is the heir apparent -- it was accepted, but isn't in boost just yet.  He describes some of the issues here:


Jeff

On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 2:00 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

This is a bit theoretical question, but I'd like to collect some opinions.

Considering sequence of C++ versions, around where, if at all,
boost::iterator_facade shines less and becomes less relevant?

In other words:
- If you had to implement iterators in C++11, would you use it?
- If you had to implement iterators in C++17, would you use it?

Has anyone observed performance issues when using iterator_facade?

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is iterator_facade still relevant in C++11, C++17?

Boost - Users mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Users mailing list
On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 22:52, Vinnie Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 2:00 PM Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > ...would you use it?
>
> Never again. Howard told me so, and I agreed.

This *is* actually a helpful comment :)
Thanks,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is iterator_facade still relevant in C++11, C++17?

Boost - Users mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Users mailing list
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 at 00:21, Jeff Garland via Boost-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I believe Zach Laine's library is the heir apparent -- it was accepted,
> but isn't in boost just yet.  He describes some of the issues here:
>
> https://tzlaine.github.io/stl_interfaces/doc/html/boost_stlinterfaces/this_library_s_relationship_to_boost_iterator.html

Excellent, thanks for the pointer, new to me.

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users