You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Update range() for additional features in python's range #55
Would it be against the philosophy of this project to extend range iterators with the operations required of random access iterators? (operator+, operator< etc)?
It would be nice to get log time std::lower_bound with this library, and it's technically feasible. I can send a PR if it would be welcome.
There are aspects of random access iterators that can't be easily handled by range, since there isn't an underlying sequence to point to. Even having it as a ForwardIterator is sort of lying. This is not to say that you couldn't go about implementing some of the operators, but standard libraries will still use the iterator category to figure it out, and you can't update the category without implementing all of the required functions.
I've thought about reaching for more advanced iterator tags before with range, I think bidirectional is doable, but the situation is more complicated with random access.
All that said, if you would like to look for a path forward I'm happy to talk or review PRs.
Hmm, I think the only real difficulty (though it may be insurmountable) is that the dereference operations are meant to return references, not values. All of the other operations look pretty simple.
Subclassing the trait tag with that imperfection is probably a dreadful idea, though, so I'll go another few years without a lightweight, well-maintained way to binary search over integers :-/.
Thanks for the help finding the flaw in that plan.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019, 5:31 PM Matthew Steel ***@***.***> wrote:
Hmm, I think the only real difficulty (though it may be insurmountable) is
that the dereference operations are meant to return references, not values.
All of the other operations look pretty simple.
Subclassing the trait tag with that imperfection is probably a dreadful
idea, though, so I'll go another few years without a lightweight way to
binary search over integers :-/.
Thanks for the help finding the flaw in that plan.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#55?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAIWWWNWWJPOYYOJQPPFWPTQAT5WTA5CNFSM4HARYGNKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD2OPA2A#issuecomment-513601640>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIWWWMH2MTCQXEDMLBVGJTQAT5WTANCNFSM4HARYGNA>
.
Activity
Adds range .start() .step() and .stop()
Adds .size() to range
MatthewSteel commentedon Jul 18, 2019
Would it be against the philosophy of this project to extend
rangeiterators with the operations required of random access iterators? (operator+,operator<etc)?It would be nice to get log time
std::lower_boundwith this library, and it's technically feasible. I can send a PR if it would be welcome.ryanhaining commentedon Jul 20, 2019
There are aspects of random access iterators that can't be easily handled by range, since there isn't an underlying sequence to point to. Even having it as a ForwardIterator is sort of lying. This is not to say that you couldn't go about implementing some of the operators, but standard libraries will still use the iterator category to figure it out, and you can't update the category without implementing all of the required functions.
Look at libc++'s implementation of
std::lower_boundwhich calls through tostd::advance, which of course is implemented using tag dispatch on the iterator_category.I've thought about reaching for more advanced iterator tags before with range, I think bidirectional is doable, but the situation is more complicated with random access.
All that said, if you would like to look for a path forward I'm happy to talk or review PRs.
MatthewSteel commentedon Jul 22, 2019
Hmm, I think the only real difficulty (though it may be insurmountable) is that the dereference operations are meant to return references, not values. All of the other operations look pretty simple.
Subclassing the trait tag with that imperfection is probably a dreadful idea, though, so I'll go another few years without a lightweight, well-maintained way to binary search over integers :-/.
Thanks for the help finding the flaw in that plan.
ryanhaining commentedon Jul 22, 2019
MatthewSteel commentedon Jul 23, 2019
I wouldnt know sorry, I was just voicing a vague hope that enough people will reinvent the wheel that one of them will turn out to be useful.