boostorg/iterator
1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/boostorg/iterator.git synced 2025-07-23 09:27:15 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

added my name to a bunch of them

Browse Source 
[SVN r21465]
This commit is contained in:
Jeremy Siek
2004-01-03 20:39:39 +00:00
parent c326818764
commit d5e525dd19
1 changed files with 15 additions and 14 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

29
doc/iter-issue-list.rst
View File

@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ iterator_adaptor(Base) has no Requires clause, although the Returns clause says
member is copy construced from the argument (this may actually be an oversight in N1550,
which doesn't require iterators to be copy constructible or assignable).
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work **** (Jeremy)
Add a requirements section for the template parameters of
iterator_adaptor, and state that Base must be Copy Constructible and
Assignable.
@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ as in the current standard. Something like: "iterates through the controlled seq
opposite direction"
N1541 50
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work **** (Jeremy)
We agree and need to find wording.
@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ Status: New
reverse_iterator::dereference is specified as calling a function named 'prior' which has no
specification.
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
Replace use of prior with what it does.
@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ Status: New
Transform iterator has a two-part specification: it does this, in other words, it does that. "In other
words" always means "I didn't say it right, so I'll try again." We need to say it once.
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
Reword.
9.12 Transform_iterator shouldn’t mandate private member
@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ The description of Counting iterator is unclear. "The counting iterator adaptor
dereference by returning a reference to the base object. The other operations are implemented by
the base m_iterator, as per the inheritance from iterator_adaptor."
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
Reword.
@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ I'm not sure what this means. The user provides a template argument named Differ
there's no difference_type. I assume this is just a glitch in the wording. But if implementors are
encouraged to ignore this argument if it won't work right, why is it there?
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
Reword.
@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ and to increment such an object. It's only when you try to assign through a dere
that f(x) has to work, and then only for the particular function object that the iterator holds and
for the particular value that is being assigned.
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
Agree, need to find wording.
@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ This means someone can store an output_proxy object for later use, whatever that
constrains output_proxy to hold a copy of the function object, rather than a pointer to the iterator
object. Is all this mechanism really necessary?
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
Agree, need to find wording.
@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ iterator_traits<X>::reference. istreambuf_iterator::operator* returns charT, but
istreambuf_iterator::reference is charT&. So am I overlooking something, or is
istreambuf_iterator not Readable
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
Remove requirements on the reference type from Readable Iterator.
@ -680,7 +680,8 @@ function prototypes. In the other adaptors, that means making sure we
state what concepts are modeled. Also, we will need an Interoperable
Iterator concept to accomplish this.
I'll start on the work of changing the specification for the
specialized adaptors. -Jeremy
Problem with specification of a->m in Readable Iterator
@ -718,7 +719,7 @@ categories. There is no description of what the argument to
iterator_adaptor should be.
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work **** (Jeremy)
@ -756,7 +757,7 @@ pun, or is iterator_traits<Iterator>::value_type required to be some form
of iterator? If it's the former we need to find a different way to say it.
If it's the latter we need to say so.
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
@ -792,7 +793,7 @@ There's probably a better way to specify that last alternative, but I've
been at this too long, and it's all turning into a maze of twisty passages,
all alike.
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)
@ -819,4 +820,4 @@ arguments. The only specification for any of these in the details is:
Needs more.
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****
Proposed resolution: **** Needs work ****(Jeremy)