From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-12 12:47:08
| > We chose "iterator_value" et al because we couldn't be sure that
| > someone wouldn't need to make another concept Q in boost that had its
| > own, separate notion of an value_type. If you then had a type X that
| > fulfilled both the Iterator and Q concepts, how would you specialize
| > value_type_of?
| It "iterator_of" and "value_type_of" were in separate namespaces
| for the separate concepts, then they could be qualified or not as
| the user sees fit using namespace aliases, using directives, and
| full qualification.
exactly. this at least one benefit of using namespace + _of postfix over prefixing with range_. If the namespace is hidiously long,
the user can remove it or shorten it.
but I would like to hear more voices on this issue :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk