On 11/15/2012 04:10 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > "next" was supposed to be "find and return another mode" rather than "++". > Did you think it was confusing because "next" sounded too much like the > latter?
I wasn't keen on "next" being find-and-return, though I didn't actually find it confusing. And perhaps rather than bikeshed this too much now, we should table this for revision in 4.9... > I hadn't thought about an operator bool terminator. I agree that's > probably simpler, but do any libstdc++ classes have the same thing? > It doesn't feel any more standard than the "while (get_more)" idiom to me, > but that's probably just my ignorance of C++. ... when we can attack all the iterators. No, you're right that operator bool as a terminator isn't standard. Though for many purposes it seems better than the "!= fake_end_object" semantics that we'd have to use otherwise. That's a discussion that we should have generally as we find our feet with C++ in GCC. Unless Eric has any strong objections, I think this patch is ok. And thus the entire patch set, as I havn't seen anything else that raises a red flag. r~
