[boost] Re: String Algo Review Results

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-01 19:20:44

Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:03:36AM -1000, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I think it should be moved outside and documented as a separate
>> utility.  It's valuable to be able to pass containers around.  It
>> would be good if you'd look over the functionality of half_open_range
>> and see if there's anything worth stealing.
>> 
> Ok this seems reasonable. There is one more thing left open: the name.
>
> Is "iterator_range" ok, or should it be renamed to "range"?
> There is a set of support utilities, which has currently names like
> make_range, copy_range and etc.
> Either these functions are renamed to make_iterator_range (and etc.),
> or the class will have to be renamed to "range".
>
> My question to public is: What is prefered solution?

It should only be called "range" if it's meant to work on ranges of
non-iterators.  But then, you should call it half_open_range ;-)

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