"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> writes:
But you still haven't given me a reason I can understand why it shouldn't be "boost_range_begin()" etc.. Peter Dimov made some excellent arguments in the thread containing http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/9718 (click the subject line to see the thread).
It's true he made some excellent arguments in that thread, but this is a different argument. ;-) Once you accept as a given that we should be using an ADL customization point, what should we call it?
It's not an entirely different argument. Peter was saying that once you publicize the customization point, it no longer "belongs" to the library. Imagine what happens if some other library wanted to use the same range concept, but not depend on Boost itself. Either they'd be picking a new ugly name for a customization point with identical semantics :( or they'd be using the name "boost_range_begin" in code with no Boost relationship in sight :(. As my wife's co-worker says, "it's a two-headed sword" ;-) For that reason, it might be better to use something like "iterator_range_begin" that has a hope of becoming lingua franca like swap. At least that's how I understand Peter's argument. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com