"Thomas Witt" <witt@acm.org> wrote in message news:d2rt3p$g1b$1@sea.gmane.org... | Thorsten Ottosen wrote: | > Dear all, | > | > Have anybody any last objections to breaking changes to boost.range: | > | > boost::range_iterator<T>::type | > | > becomes | > | > boost::range::iterator<T>::type | > | > and so forth. All code that relies on | > ADL inside the range library by overloading the functions begin() etc | > will need to be renamed range_begin() etc. | | Sorry I was unresponsive for a few days but I was travelling. I still | think this is the wrong way to do it. One reason is that it requires | every library X that wants to interface with the range lib to uglify its | interface by the range_ prefix. yes, but in return the library only has two provide one overload of begin/end. |AFAICS there are two ways out of this | | a) X provides the unprefixed begin as well. how does that solve anything? | b) X requires the use of boost.range in order to have a "natural" interface | | I really think this is bad. a) or b) ? | If we want to have adl wrappers what is an ADL wrapper? -Thorsten