Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message | But we can still come up with a convention used by any *new* ADL | customization points. That's what you're asking about anyway, right?
yes, agreed.
| > | > Free-standing functions seems to have slightly different | > goals. | | | You lost me. What goals?
that boost:::foo() does ADL.
new_clone() is used primarily inside the containers and does therefore not suffer much inconvenience.
I'm still lost. What inconvenience?
| > One consequence of using the name | > boost_range_begin() is that the users code won't | > work with the next standard library. I would like to retain | > compatibility if possible. | > | | | First, there's just no reasonable expectation that boost libraries | should be forward-compatible with some future version that gets accepted | into the standard. Libraries change as they go through standardization | -- that's expected. And second, the standardization committee might | reason like I did and decide that "std_range_begin()" is a better name | than "range_adl_begin()", and you've lost compatibility anyway.
true, that could happen. the difference being that we might not. In some sense it also seems wierd that the same customization point should have different points in different libararies. Seems redundant.
What is redundant? What different libraries? We're talking about the ADL customization points of /one particular library/. A customization point cannot be in two libraries simultaneously. I must have missed your point again. Please set me straight.
Another set of names could be
begin_range() end_range() size_range()
But you still haven't given me a reason I can understand why it shouldn't be "boost_range_begin()" etc.. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com