From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-24 11:43:42
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | It's not an entirely different argument. Peter was saying that once
> | you publicize the customization point, it no longer "belongs" to the
> | library. Imagine what happens if some other library wanted to use the
> | same range concept, but not depend on Boost itself. Either they'd be
> | picking a new ugly name for a customization point with identical
> | semantics :( or they'd be using the name "boost_range_begin" in code
> | with no Boost relationship in sight :(.
> | As my wife's co-worker says, "it's a two-headed sword" ;-)
> | For that reason, it might be better to use something like
> | "iterator_range_begin" that has a hope of becoming lingua franca like
> | swap. At least that's how I understand Peter's argument.
> Hm.. yeah...I guess you're better at expressing my point than
> I myself :-)
> iterator_range_ seems to be a good prefix.
> What do you say, Eric, do you like
> iterator_range_begin() etc?
Why iterator_range_? I'm not sure it this is the best, since there is already
a class named iterator_range and such a naming might lead to a confusion
about the affinity to this class.
IIRC, when Boost.Range was accepted as a proper name for this library, it was
also accepted as a name of the concept.
So why not stick to the simple range_begin() ?
I might be missing something?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk