Re: [boost] [Range] breaking update pending

From: Thorsten Ottosen (tottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-03 18:49:22

Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> 
>>Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>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!
>>
>>
>>Can you elaborate on what exactly you would like to see?
> 
> 
> For instance, ATL/WTL have four strings.
> They have the same interfaces.
> I want to share the implementation.
> You may say "Forward them to one implementation function", but:
> 
>    template< class BaseT, class TraitsT > inline
>    typename boost::range_iterator< CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT> >::type
>    boost_range_begin(CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT>& str)
>    {
>      return str.GetBuffer(0);
>    }
> 
>    template< class BaseT, class TraitsT > inline
>    typename boost::range_const_iterator< CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT> >::type
>    boost_range_begin(const CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT>& str)
>    {
>      return str.GetString();
>    }
> 
> 
> Even forwarding is horror.

right. not much to do about that. As Peter Dimov and others argued,
you can easy forwarding, but the problem is that we still need 
free-standing boost::begin() and boost::end() on their own.

> Moreover, the different version of ATL has different template parameters.

if ATL actually uses a namespace, you could add a unconstrained overload
of range_begin/range_end.

-Thorsten