[Boost-users] Re: [Foreach]TroubleiteratingoverBoost.MultiIndexcontainers

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-08 22:08:32

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:usm35lvo0.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> | > no, I was going to find user's adl_end() function via ADL. So this changes 
> the
> | > extension protocol
> | > to overloading adl_end() from overloading end().
> |
> | So, how does that keep ADL from kicking in?  It doesn't.
>
> no, we want ADL to kick in.
>
> | I guess the ugly adl_ prefix
>
> do you now anything less ugly? It clearly states the purpose of the function.
>
> | might protect you from most accidental
> | collisions, but I'd rather see something that couldn't end up being a
> | useful acronym in some other context
> |
> | 
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=adl&Find=Find
> |
> | adl_end seems very likely to collide.
>
> does it? 

Yes.

> there is always some suffix, like _end(), _begin(), _size(), 
> _empty().

You don't think someone might name a function to get the end of an
analog delay line "adl_end?"

You're much safer using boost_range_end or range_end if you're trying
to keep it small.  I don't see any reason to keep it small, though:
users won't be invoking that function directly.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com