[boost] Re: [Range] issues

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 07:22:56

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

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:uekcpcfg2.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> |
> | I was just looking at using Boost.Range in my new Sequence library and
> | noticed the following:
> |
> |  1. The documentation of requirements uses names like range_iterator
> |     without qualification.  You need to add the boost:: prefix or
> |     make it very clear that all names are implicitly boost:: prefixed
> |     (as opposed to, say, boost::range:: prefixed).  I prefer the
> |     former; people may land on the documentation for reference
> |     without reading all the introductory material.
> |
> |  2. Names like range_iterator in the requirements tables should be
> |     hyperlinked to some documentation for them.
>
> yeah, good idea.
>
> |  3. The documentation you land on should clearly state in which
> |     header those names can be found.
>
> there is a header section.

I know that.  But when you land on the documentation for range_value
(for example) the header it's in should be visible.

> |  4. Having a pile of names prefixed by "range_" (like
> |     boost::range_const_iterator) just seems wrong to me when we have
> |     namespaces.  Is there a good reason we're not using
> |     boost::range::const_iterator or boost::ranges::const_iterator?
>
> decision made in review or post-review. people like it that way.

Count one more vote against, FWIW.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com