Re: [boost] Boost.Range naming

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-22 10:04:20

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

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:u64w6a66h.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> |
> | > 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.
>
> make value<T>::type etc nested classes of the iterator/range class.

Bad idea IMO; it means nobody can adapt a 3rd party type or a builtin
to make it fit the Range concept.  It's the same reason we use traits
instead of requiring nested type names.

> | 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.
>
> I'm not sure what beside Erics et al.s range_ex you want
> to stabilize that hasn't already been discussed extensively.

It doesn't matter how extensively it has been discussed if it
hasn't been implemented and used widely.

> Anyway, I plan to write the proposal in several "levels" s.t. the
> committee can stop at whatever level it feels is appropriate.

Not a great idea either, IMO.  If you give the committee too many
options, people tend to either get confused, or get mired in arguments
about which one to choose.  A simple proposal stands a much better
chance.

I have been trying to help you, but I'm feeling rather discouraged
now.  Unless you tell me you want more of this kind of input, I'll
just stop now.

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