in reply to Re^4: Why is const x const not a const?
in thread Why is const x const not a const?

> Because I see no evidence for it:

Not surprising

for (START .. STOP) { }

is magically optimized into an iterator to avoid building the list.

But if you try

for (reverse START .. STOP) { }

instead, you will see the memory consumption, because that optimization is (unfortunately) missing here.

Cheers Rolf