Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message We're talking about the ADL | customization points of /one particular library/.
are we?
Yes, we are. The thing is IMO that were are talking about customization
points of a concept, not a particular library.
No. boost_range_begin() is *only* called from boost::begin(). Nobody should be calling it directly. It is part of the Boost.Range library's interface that it can be customized this way. Concepts have nothing to do with it.
| A customization point | cannot be in two libraries simultaneously. I must have missed your point | again. Please set me straight.
struct Foo { ... this is a range with adaptation ... }
iterator boost_range_begin( Foo& f );
iterator std_range_begin( Foo& f );
iterator adope_range_begin( Foo& f );
what is the difference between the three functions, apart from their name?
Separate libraries should not be picking the same name for use as a customization point. The Range library is the only place that defines the Range concept, and it has one function, boost::begin(), for finding the beginning of the range. That function has one customization point. What should it be called? That's the only thing we're concerned with here.
| But you still haven't given me a reason I can understand why it | shouldn't be "boost_range_begin()" etc..
I'm saying that it might not be the right solution; I don't see why we should give the same concept different interfaces.
Concepts are not the concern here -- only how to allow users to customize the behavior of a library.
We are already protecting classes by a namespace, shouldn't that be enough.
No, because we're using unqualified calls to turn on ADL. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com