From 1003322106215175769 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net!frodo.cs.rpi.edu!not-for-mail From: Nikolay Ivchenkov Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: No cbegin/cend for std::initializer_list? Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:14:50 CST Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 18 Sender: cppmods@cs.rpi.edu Approved: james.dennett@gmail.com Message-ID: <1b8b2c5d-7f06-46c5-b403-50aad13632cf@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20090901101108.063e9c28@aristeia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To: (Usenet) Return-Path: X-Original-Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:43:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Submission-Address: std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.std.c++:1334 On 1 Sep, 22:39, Scott Meyers wrote: > but offering cbegin/cend would make it easier to write generic code I think that generic code should use more general approach. N2930 proposes functions "begin" and "end" to be added to namespace std. I think, there shall be also "cbegin", "cend", "rbegin", "rend", "crbegin", and "crend" versions. Supposed std::cbegin can be applied to built-in arrays in the same manner as to class-containers, and it can work fine with old containers those don't have member function "cbegin". IMHO, direct use of container's member "cbegin" in generic code is bad idea. -- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]