Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 09:43:02

on Mon Nov 24 2008, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com> wrote:

> I'm fine with having a non-deprecated boost::range<T> with the old
> behavior. I don't know if there is concensus for this?

I'm totally fine with it, except for the name.  I would prefer to keep
the name "range" in namespace boost usable for something that isn't
considered a dead end or a design mistake.  I guess it's a testament to
the weirdness of the old design that I can't think of a good descriptive
name.

    boost::nonsigular_range

comes to mind, except of course anything that invalidates its contained
iterators (e.g. throwing out the underlying container) makes it
singular again.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com