From: Shunsuke Sogame (mb2act_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-03 07:28:36
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
>>Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>>>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
>>Where the range concept belongs? "Global"?
> yep, in the sense that customization points are not tied to
> a particular library.
>>I'm maybe an worrier, struggling with ADL invasions.
>>But short names conflict.
> true, that is why begin()/end() were abadened.
I maybe failed persuasion. :-)
But "mathematically", I believe ADL customization
must be full name that emulates namespace.
Well, I request tag-dispatching customization using
class template partial specialization to next Boost.Ranges.
Now that I really need tag-dispatching, I'm against ADL customization.
I recall you said something like that. You were right.
My current ATL/WTL CString range implementation code is horror.
Will you add it to TODO list of next Boost.Ranges!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk