Re: [boost] [Range] breaking update pending

From: Shunsuke Sogame (mb2act_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-02 23:11:52

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> MB wrote:
> 
>>Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It is possible to hook 'range_iterator' from user specializations?
>>>>
>>>> template< class T >
>>>> struct range_iterator<const T> : range_const_iterator<T> { };
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately, Boost.Range documentation doesn't say
>>>>'range_iterator< const Foo::Pair<T> >' must be specialized.
>>>>User 'range_iterator' specializations still work.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you explain?
>>
>>
>>Sorry, please forget this code. I was confused or drunken.
>>I had ever specialized 'range_iterator<const MyX>' to return "mutable" iterator,
>>before I removed it some time ago.
>>
>>I see "range_iterator -> range_mutable_iterator" change
>>doesn't break any current user customizations.
>>Am I right?
> 
> 
> well, it could break any specialization of range_iterator.
> 
> I'll see if I can avoid it, but I won't promise that I can.
> 
> 
> 
>>>>As for 'boost_range_begin', the change is rather dangerous.
>>>>Please do google "range_end".
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't get a lot of hits that uses range_end as a function.
>>
>>
>>If 'range_end' is a function, it is rather lucky.
>>Once "int range_end;" is defined, I think there is no workaround.
> 
> 
> right, if you have a namespace static variable called range_end, then 
> you can't define a function of the same name in that namespace. But what 
> are the chances of that? remember there is no problem with
> 
> {
>    // some scope
>    int range_end;
>    boost::end(rng);
> }

I already define a function as a functor to support 'result_of':

   const range_end_function& range_end = ...;

>>I read the long discussion why 'boost_range_begin' was born.
>>Did I overlook another discussion about the birth of 'range_begin'?
> 
> 
> maybe, there was some discussion about the problems of tying
> a concept to a library name. the range concept exists out-side of boost
> and any type T conforms to it if it implements range_begin(T&) and 
> range_end(T&) etc.

Where the range concept belongs? "Global"?

I'm maybe an worrier, struggling with ADL invasions.
But short names conflict.

Regards,
Shunsuke Sogame