220 7184 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: lefevreremy@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: "count_while" and "count_until" algorithms Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 90 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <2602b3fd-fccd-459b-be1a-93a12005dc5c@isocpp.org> <231e6ef1-599d-4877-be6c-55e85e5a4e41@isocpp.org> <6e15fc38-8be3-4e74-ade9-e25a8d0e0509@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_316_4162083.1381265957761" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1381265956 16810 80.91.229.3 (8 Oct 2013 20:59:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:59:16 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCN7B34JVEARBJ7E2GJAKGQERNBOUSY@isocpp.org Tue Oct 08 22:59:21 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f198.google.com ([209.85.214.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VTeNE-0000Rg-Uk for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:59:21 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f198.google.com with SMTP id va2sf4575995obc.9 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:59:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=BaHqOvUWuBM39CD+DH+mGDqFa+/mmRQt2i3uiEwt3fM=; b=vG86f8sNlrWTix/31eKW6tKjxjSG4zKsldozd4rOURBKr0ehXerkAzYahzdW5FmslL H7Tle+6eSvj7NxQTuet/CnmLTlbfQJEiMhNIGOxwUrngGIye4+GGXnKuLDQEZmiRpo5o sfpoDVXcVAc7nvE78+/G6Dq8oADWM+D1soFxUGr2gxLWV1pWigMC8ZrqlsX4kRJw/4UU WxtbHCel5b2ub2cynz2tVkr39KDtM6/sGmAXQUijWrv0iO7Ntnwg3fOK0kwTXpfwbvYu KRxaKlmotzoEt1C+HWExarHyNKsWmtkA8J0DYI88k0jLWKTovGAiVUW6yZPC298nIaru Qofg== X-Received: by 10.43.65.81 with SMTP id xl17mr2007389icb.29.1381265959800; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:59:19 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.50.253.193 with SMTP id ac1ls626517igd.13.gmail; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:59:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.111.200 with SMTP id ik8mr1073775igb.7.1381265959107; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 13:59:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lefevreremy@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:7184 Archived-At: ------=_Part_316_4162083.1381265957761 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable @Nevin: I agree for overload instead of specialization for random access=20 iterator. My bad ! Le mardi 8 octobre 2013 22:50:34 UTC+2, Nevin ":-)" Liber a =E9crit : > > On 8 October 2013 15:44, Daniel Kr=FCgler > > wrote: > >> 2013/10/8 >: >> > @Evgeny: Yes, I see the advantage to return both count and iterator,= =20 >> but I >> > didn't find an elegant way to do it for the moment. >> >> Traditionally a std::pair is used for this. >> > > While true, I really rather we get away from doing so, as "iterator" and= =20 > "count" are far better field names than "first" and "second". > --=20 > Nevin ":-)" Liber > (847)= =20 > 691-1404=20 > --=20 ---=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposa= ls/. ------=_Part_316_4162083.1381265957761 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
@Nevin: I agree for overload instead of specialization for= random access iterator. My bad !

Le mardi 8 octobre 2013 22:50:34 U= TC+2, Nevin ":-)" Liber a =E9crit :
On 8 October 2013 15:44, Daniel Kr=FCgler <daniel....@gmail.com> wrote:
2013/10/8  <lefev...@gmail.com= >:
> @Evgeny: Yes, I see the advantage to return both count and iterat= or, but I
> didn't find an elegant way to do it for the moment.

Traditionally a std::pair<A, B> is used for this.

While true, I really rather we get away from doing s= o, as "iterator" and "count" are far better field names than "first" and "s= econd".
--
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:ne...@evi= loverlord.com>  (847) 691-1404

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_316_4162083.1381265957761-- .