From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-03 05:06:44
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
> boost_range_end(). From the CVS history, that is what was implemented.
> But that is not what was documented, and it's not what your concept
> specifications require.
I have no recollection of this.
To give you all a proper answer, I will have to reread the
entire discussion. I don't intend to use my weekend for that, but I'll
return monday or tuesday with a proper answer.
> It's also not mentioned anywhere in the proposal you made to the C++
> standardization committee, AFAICT. Customization points are *crucially*
> important to the Range concepts,
> and we spent a long time discussing it.
> You have ignored that. Boost.Range is a mess, the concepts are wrong,
> and so is your proposal.
The proposal uses the same extension mechanism as the one in boost.
Libraries must call the functions unqualified. I see no problem with that.
My recollection is that having boost::foo() do ADL was *firmly* rejected, and
so that is why I don't see the boost_range_end() being that important.
The docs might be wrong right now, but that is of minor importance.
Anyway, I'll respond properly later.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk