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 range_end(T&) etc.
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! Regards, Shunsuke Sogame