From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-17 06:13:16
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| I don't remember whether I expressed these concerns earlier, but I
| don't think most of the names ought to have been in namespace boost.
| For example, names like range_xxxx are crying out for a range::
| namespace in which to put a component called xxxx. Also, names like
| begin and end are so general and important that I think they should
| have been in boost::range, with perhaps an optional header that brings
| them into namespace boost via using declaration.
This came up in the long discussion we had some time ago about ADL and
names like begin()/end().
I think the consensus was to use the form
The only sorry thing about this is that in namespace std we already have a
class called iterator.
When I write the standard proposal, I will go for the
range namespace + merge iterator<T>::type and const_iterator<T>::type.
There are a number of larger changes we have already been considering; it
make sense to make use of the range namespace in the sane round for 1.34.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk