Boost logo

Boost :

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
> | "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

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.


Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at