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

From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmutkaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-13 03:57:14

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

> | |
> | |   boost::iterators::value<I>::type
> | |   boost::iterators::reference<I>::type
> | |
> | |   boost::ranges::value<R>::type
> | |
> | | and so forth?
> |
> | good idea to rename value_type<I>::type value<T>::type :-) 
> I guess we 
> | should do that with
> |
> | range::size<R>::type
> | range::difference<R>::type
> |
> | too.
> 
> I'm having second thoughts. It seems a little irritating to 
> specify in a concept that the metafunctions reside in namespace X.
> 
> I guess the issue boils down to these choices:
> 
> typename range::value<T>::type
[snip]
> 
> typename range_value<T>::type
[snip]
> 
> or with full qualification
> 
> typename boost::range::value<T>::type
[snip]
> 
> typename boost::range_value<T>::type
[snip]
> 
> I think my personal view would be that I think range_ reads 
> better than range::. Too many :: and it seems a bit confusing.

I'm personally prefer to use namespaces to structurize the code, i.e. the 

    typename range::value<T>::type

notation. The range_value<T>::type notation unneededly clutters the 'global'
boost namespace.

Regards Hartmut