"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> wrote in message news:cfpjrh$f65$1@sea.gmane.org... | I don't like dropping the '_type' here -- One of the main advantages | of a naming convention is that you can figure out what the name should | be without consulting the docs. Consider a nearly identical situation | in my iostreams library (to be reviwed later this month). Instead of | | typename Source::char_type | | I use | | boost::io::char_type<Source>::type | | If we were to drop the '_type' we would have boost::io::char, which is | illegal. Same for int_type. Of course, the convention could be to keep | '_type' if necessary, or to use a trailing underscore, but I'd rather | have the easy-to-remember convention that the metafunction has the | same name as the traditional nested type. you could also say io_char<T>::type io_int<T>::type and put it in namespace boost? | > The smallest change is not to change the iterator library and | therefore I will | > use the prefix range_ for my metafunctions unless there are heavy | objections. | | I think range_xxx and ranges::xxx are about equally good. I don't | really like the convention of forming namespace names by adding 's' -- | although I don't have a better idea -- so perhaps I'd choose | range_xxx. ok. br Thorsten