On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivasco...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Or just don't use range-for, it's not essential (given the trouble >> it's caused I'd quite happily have lived without it in C++0x!) > > IMO, this goes beyond the syntactic sugar that the range-for provides. > It is about specifying a unified 'range' concept.
But what is that `unified range concept'? And why do we need it? > The range-for is > just the first, highly visible, user of this implicit specification. Exactly. Which for me means, it must be simple. Simple to learn, simple to use, simple to teach. BTW, if you are trying to change the specification is gcc-patches the appropriate place to discuss that?
