Re: [boost] Boost.Range naming

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-17 09:33:42

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

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:uhdfznybq.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> |
> | 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
>
> range::iterator<T>::type
> range::value<T>::type
> iterator::value<T>::type
> iterator::difference<T>::type

So I take it you just haven't had the time to make the change yet?

> The only sorry thing about this is that in namespace std we already
> have a class called iterator.
              ^
              template ;-)

Yep, especially sorry because it's so useless ;-)

OTOH we could give it an additional default argument so that when it
is used as a unary metafunction it has the new semantics  :-)

> When I write the standard proposal, I will go for the
> range namespace + merge iterator<T>::type and
> const_iterator<T>::type.

You mean, you'll be proposing std::range::whatever?

Ideally, you should have the semantic changes working in Boost well
before you submit the proposal.  Remember "standardize existing
practice?"

> There are a number of larger changes we have already been
> considering; it might make sense to make use of the range namespace
> in the sane round for 1.34.

"Sane round?"

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