fixed sgi stl links

[SVN r9630]

MultiPassInputIterator.html

@@ -21,21 +21,21 @@
 
 <H2>
 <A NAME="concept:MultiPassInputIterator"></A>
-MultiPassInputIterator
+Multi-Pass Input Iterator
 </H2>
 
 This concept is a refinement of <a
-href="http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/InputIterator.html">InputIterator</a>,
+href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/InputIterator.html">Input Iterator</a>,
 adding the requirements that the iterator can be used to make multiple
 passes through a range, and that if <TT>it1 == it2</TT> and
 <TT>it1</TT> is dereferenceable then <TT>++it1 == ++it2</TT>. The
-MultiPassInputIterator is very similar to the <a
+Multi-Pass Input Iterator is very similar to the <a
-href="http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/ForwardIterator.hmtl">ForwardIterator</a>. The
+href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/ForwardIterator.hmtl">Forward Iterator</a>. The
 only difference is that a <a
-href="http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/ForwardIterator.hmtl">ForwardIterator</a>
+href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/ForwardIterator.hmtl">Forward Iterator</a>
 requires the <TT>reference</TT> type to be <TT>value_type&amp;</TT>, whereas
 MultiPassInputIterator is like <a
-href="http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/InputIterator.html">InputIterator</a>
+href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/InputIterator.html">Input Iterator</a>
 in that the <TT>reference</TT> type merely has to be convertible to
 <TT>value_type</TT>.
 
@@ -44,29 +44,29 @@ in that the <TT>reference</TT> type merely has to be convertible to
 
 comments by Valentin Bonnard:
 
-<p> I think that introducing MultiPassInputIterator isn't the right
+<p> I think that introducing Multi-Pass Input Iterator isn't the right
-solution. Do you also want to define MultiPassBidirectionnalIterator
+solution. Do you also want to define Multi-Pass Bidirectionnal Iterator
-and MultiPassRandomAccessIterator ? I don't, definitly. It only
+and Multi-Pass Random Access Iterator ? I don't, definitly. It only
 confuses the issue. The problem lies into the existing hierarchy of
 iterators, which mixes movabillity, modifiabillity and lvalue-ness,
 and these are clearly independant.
 
-<p> The terms Forward, Bidirectionnal and RandomAccess are about
+<p> The terms Forward, Bidirectionnal and Random Access are about
 movabillity and shouldn't be used to mean anything else.  In a
 completly orthogonal way, iterators can be immutable, mutable, or
 neither.  Lvalueness of iterators is also orthogonal with
-immutabillity.  With these clean concepts, your MultiPassInputIterator
+immutabillity.  With these clean concepts, your Multi-Pass Input Iterator
-is just called a ForwardIterator.
+is just called a Forward Iterator.
 
 <p>                
 Other translations are:<br>
-std::ForwardIterator -> ForwardIterator & LvalueIterator<br>
+std::Forward Iterator -> ForwardIterator & Lvalue Iterator<br>
-std::BidirectionnalIterator -> BidirectionnalIterator & LvalueIterator<br>
+std::Bidirectionnal Iterator -> Bidirectionnal Iterator & Lvalue Iterator<br>
-std::RandomAccessIterator -> RandomAccessIterator & LvalueIterator<br>
+std::Random Access Iterator -> Random Access Iterator & Lvalue Iterator<br>
 
 <p>
 Note that in practice the only operation not allowed on my 
-ForwardIterator which is allowed on std::ForwardIterator is 
+Forward Iterator which is allowed on std::Forward Iterator is 
 <tt>&*it</tt>. I think that <tt>&*</tt> is rarely needed in generic code.
 
 <p>
@@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ reply by Jeremy Siek:
 <p>
 The above analysis by Valentin is right on. Of course, there is
 the problem with backward compatibility. The current STL implementations
-are based on the old definition of ForwardIterator. The right course
+are based on the old definition of Forward Iterator. The right course
-of action is to get ForwardIterator, etc. changed in the C++ standard.
+of action is to get Forward Iterator, etc. changed in the C++ standard.
-Once that is done we can drop MultiPassInputIterator.
+Once that is done we can drop Multi-Pass Input Iterator.
 
 
 <br>