Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-24 10:24:01

On 24 Nov 2008, at 14:43, David Abrahams wrote:

>
> 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.

Could I suggest "boost::container_view", the idea being that the type  
is at much like a container as possible, except it gives a view of  
other data rather than containing it's own data.

I am working on a library in this area myself, which pushes this idea  
further (allowing push_back and other mutating members) on a similar  
view, but this simpler type branches the gap between ranges and full- 
blown containers.

Chris