Rationale:

For Input Iterators an order is already guaranteed, because only one order is possible. If a user who passes a Forward Iterator to one of these algorithms really needs a specific order of execution, it's possible to achieve that effect by wrapping it in an Input Iterator adaptor.

Proposed resolution:

In section 25.2.3 - Transform [lib.alg.transform] change:

-1- Effects: Assigns through every iterator i in the range [result, result + (last1 - first1)) a new corresponding value equal to op(*(first1 + (i - result)) or binary_op(*(first1 + (i - result), *(first2 + (i - result))).

to:

-1- Effects: Computes values by invoking the operation op or binary_op for every iterator in the range [first1, last1) in order. Assigns through every iterator i in the range [result, result + (last1 - first1)) a new corresponding value equal to op(*(first1 + (i - result)) or binary_op(*(first1 + (i - result), *(first2 + (i - result))).

This issue is related to issue 242. In case that the resolution proposed for issue 242 is accepted, we have have the following situation: The 4 numeric algorithms (accumulate and consorts) as well as transform would allow a certain category of side effects. The numeric algorithms specify that they invoke the functor "for every iterator i in the range [first, last) in order". transform, in contrast, would not give any guarantee regarding order of invocation of the functor, which means that the functor can be invoked in any arbitrary order.

Why would that be a problem? Consider an example: say the transformator that is a simple enumerator ( or more generally speaking, "is order-sensitive" ). Since a standard compliant implementation of transform is free to invoke the enumerator in no definite order, the result could be a garbled enumeration. Strictly speaking this is not a problem, but it is certainly at odds with the prevalent understanding of transform as an algorithms that assigns "a new _corresponding_ value" to the output elements.

All implementations that I know of invoke the transformator in definite order, namely starting from first and proceeding to last - 1. Unless there is an optimization conceivable that takes advantage of the indefinite order I would suggest to specify the order, because it eliminate the uncertainty that users would otherwise have regarding the order of execution of their potentially order-sensitive function objects.