From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-08 10:47:52
Thomas Witt <witt <at> acm.org> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Not if you buy Peter Dimov's argument that many customization points
> > become "public domain" and are no longer the property of any library.
> > Read that part of the thread carefully. Once people start supplying
> > begin() hooks, other library authors may start making interfaces that
> > work with Boost.Range compatible types.
> I've read through his argument at least twice in the past. That being
> said I might still not get the point. I do agree with the names
> becomming public domain. What I disagree with is that names like
> boost_range_begin are suitable for this. They will likely always be
> warts in an interface.
I feel the same way. boost_range_begin() is gonna look like a wart
in the interface.
Anyway, I've given up on the idea of having backwards compatibility
between boost.range and the proposed std version.
If we fix ADL for C++0x, I would favor what the proposal
(I think the fact that you can forget using std::begin; is of minor importance).
If we don't fix ADL in C++0x, then we might consider (1) ADL customization
points via range_begin()/range_end()/range_size() or (2) go for a class like
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk