[boost] Re: [boost.range] post-review

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-12 13:29:55

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

> | > 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::iterators::value<I>::type
  boost::iterators::reference<I>::type

  boost::ranges::value<R>::type

and so forth?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com