[LLVMdev] [RFC] Add empty() method to iterator_range.

[Lang Hames]

I hope the C++ community at large wouldn't be so easily swayed. At least
not by such a straightforward use case - I doubt it's where the interesting
action on 'empty' will take place. OTOH, as you said - it's easy enough to
get by without this. I'm happy to leave this alone for now.

- Lang.

Just in case...
The C++ community will buy me whisky.
The C++ community will buy me whisky.
The C++ community will buy me whisky.




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote:

>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is easy to punt (and I won't be especially bothered if that's what
>> we do), but it also seems like it would be easy to implement our own
>> version (llvm::is_empty?) and replace it when the committee decides on
>> something, the same way we did with llvm::move?
>
>
> Well, llvm::move is quite different -- the path forward for the standard
> was *very* clear at that point, so the committee had already decided, we
> just didn't have access to it yet.
>
>
>> Is there any reason not to follow that approach?
>
>
> It runs the risk of setting precedent both within LLVM and within the
> larger community. :: shrug ::
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140322/e1d4d992/attachment.html>