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

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-13 11:22:31

"Daniel Frey" <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:cfi2an$4ed$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>
>>typename boost::range::value<T>::type
>>
>>typename boost::range_value<T>::type
>>
>>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.
|
| I agree. Also, the user can use namespace aliases to shorten calls,
| which doesn't work with range_.

Ok, so there seem to be most people in favor of the namespace idea. Pavol Droba thinks so to.
Matthew Wilson mentions we should see of any negative consequences.

| The difference for the user is also quite minimal, but using namespaces
| might also help to keep the library "cleaner" internally, as the
| algorithms in range:: can call each other without long names.

what algorithms? We cannot put size() in range:: since it will clash.

I'm just wondering how the last details should be. I mean, now I have

namespace boost
{
   namespace range
  {
      template< class T >
      struct value;
   }
}

But would it not seem weird to specify a concept where the expression looks like

boost::range::value<T>::type

?? I mean, the boost namespace should not be part of the concept.

br

Thorsten