Re: [boost] Boost.Range naming

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-22 08:10:14

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

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:ufyvh59yx.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> | > 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?
>
> correct.
>
> | > 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  :-)
>
> yeah, ok. I guess we could also demand that the range:: or iterator::
> prefix is the name of a class.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

> | Ideally, you should have the semantic changes working in Boost well
> | before you submit the proposal.  Remember "standardize existing
> | practice?"
>
> Ideally yes. Do you find the standard process ideal? :-)

No.  I'm just trying to help you get your proposal accepted, Thorsten.

> Anyway, I feel we have enough experience and that a C++0x standard
> library without range support is going to hurt idiomatic C++0x.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what you think in this case.

The range idiom isn't in widespread use yet, and I'm not convinced we
know the right design for a range library yet.  More importantly, I
think many committee members will take the same point of view.  On the
other hand, if you have a good stable interface well before the
meeting, there's at least a chance some committee members will have
experience with it by the time we vote, and that would be a huge
advantage.

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