3 Feb
2006
3 Feb
'06
10:28 a.m.
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. -Thorsten