Iterators recap

[Sean Kelly]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> Too bad the iterator discussions fizzled out without anything getting 
>>> decided.
>>
>> I think the design was pretty well settled when things ended.  The 
>> next step would be a sample implementation so folks could wrangle over 
>> syntax.  It's on my "to do" list, but I'm a bit short on free time at 
>> the moment.
> 
> Huh.  So what is your understanding of what the consensus was?

Java-style, with random access iterators overloading array operations. 
I can't remember if there was any clear preference for the 
hasNext/getNext vs. the atEnd/getVal approach, but I tend to favor the 
latter.


Sean