On 26 August 2012 18:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26 August 2012 18:19, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>> Also, I consider the interface clean and now very C++-y. Iterators
>> are used and transparently all kinds of overloads are possible. Only
>> the iterator variants need to be documented, making the extensions
>> easy to use. The only minor complication is that the pointer type had
>> to be introduced (or something like __normal_iterator has to be
>> reinvented).
>
> It would be a lot easier to read with a typedef for the iterator type:
>
> template<typename _UniformRandomNumberGenerator>
> void
> __generate(result_type* __f, result_type* __t,
> _UniformRandomNumberGenerator& __urng,
> const param_type& __p)
> { this->__generate(__iterator(__f), __iterator(__t), __urng, __p); }
>
> private:
> typedef result_type* pointer;
> typedef
> __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<result_type*, uniform_int_distribution>
> __iterator;
>
> There's no need to qualify std::uniform_int_distribution and include
> the template argument list, within the class scope the class' own name
> is injected and can be used safely.
Or define the typedef locally to the function:
template<typename _UniformRandomNumberGenerator>
void
__generate(result_type* __f, result_type* __t,
_UniformRandomNumberGenerator& __urng,
const param_type& __p)
{
typedef __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<result_type*,
uniform_int_distribution>
__iterator;
this->__generate(__iterator(__f), __iterator(__t), __urng, __p);
}
But I've just seen Paolo's suggestion for a __generate_impl that both
use, and I prefer that idea.
