C
chris
Hello,
I have been reading the c++ standard recently, in particular the part
about input iterators. I note that given an input iterator a for type T,
then *a only has to be "convertable to T", not actually of type T.
Firstly, I can't seem to find an exact definition of "convertable to T".
While I assume it is the obvious definition (an implicit conversion), I
can't find an exact definition. Is there one?
Slightly more worryingly, there doesn't seem to be any restriction on
the this type, other than it is "convertable to T". Consider two input
iterators a and b. I would personally assume that most people would
expect *a==*b would perform T(*a)==T(*b), however it doesn't seem that
the standard requires that, and that whatever type *a is (call it U)
could have == defined on it with totally different symantics and still
be a valid inputer iterator.
Is this a correct reading? When using input iterators should I wrap all
references to *a with a T to make sure I get the actual type I want?
Chris
I have been reading the c++ standard recently, in particular the part
about input iterators. I note that given an input iterator a for type T,
then *a only has to be "convertable to T", not actually of type T.
Firstly, I can't seem to find an exact definition of "convertable to T".
While I assume it is the obvious definition (an implicit conversion), I
can't find an exact definition. Is there one?
Slightly more worryingly, there doesn't seem to be any restriction on
the this type, other than it is "convertable to T". Consider two input
iterators a and b. I would personally assume that most people would
expect *a==*b would perform T(*a)==T(*b), however it doesn't seem that
the standard requires that, and that whatever type *a is (call it U)
could have == defined on it with totally different symantics and still
be a valid inputer iterator.
Is this a correct reading? When using input iterators should I wrap all
references to *a with a T to make sure I get the actual type I want?
Chris