Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message | I suggest: | | boost_range_begin() | boost_range_end() | boost_range_size() | | In general, boost libraries that use ADL customization points should | name the functions: | | boost_[library]_[function]() | | The idea is that these overloads are going to appear in users' code, in | their namespace. From a maintenence standpoint, "boost_range_begin" | announces more clearly that this function has to do with the Boost.Range | library than "range_adl_begin". | | Comments?
I do like that convention for boost.range. But it doesn't seem to apply to all ADL customization points; for example, in the pointer container lib
new_clone() delete_clone()
But we can still come up with a convention used by any *new* ADL customization points. That's what you're asking about anyway, right?
Free-standing functions seems to have slightly different goals.
You lost me. What goals?
One consequence of using the name boost_range_begin() is that the users code won't work with the next standard library. I would like to retain compatibility if possible.
First, there's just no reasonable expectation that boost libraries should be forward-compatible with some future version that gets accepted into the standard. Libraries change as they go through standardization -- that's expected. And second, the standardization committee might reason like I did and decide that "std_range_begin()" is a better name than "range_adl_begin()", and you've lost compatibility anyway. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com