r203299 - In my tests, I'm finding that declaring iterators in terms of ranges can sometimes have dangerous side-effects where the range temporary is destroyed, taking the underlying iterators out with it.

[Aaron Ballman]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I think I actually prefer defining the range in terms of the iterators
> rather than vice-versa... At least, until the non-range variants go away.

I've reapplied this using Chandler's suggestion in r203351. My
apologies for the churn. :-)

~Aaron