Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.aau.dk> writes:
would the following suffice?
hm... no attachments via web-interface.
Please see
https://www.cs.aau.dk/~nesotto/C++/doc/boost_range.html#minimal_interface
instead.
This looks good. Thanks for taking care of this. I still have a problem with range_value<> and friends. To satisfy the Range concept, users are required to specialize boost::range_value<> in spite of the fact that it will always be equivalent to std::iterator_traits<Range>::value_type. This makes Range harder to extend for no benefit. The Range library can provide range_value<> without requiring users to specialize it. Regarding the concepts, it is correct to say, as you do, that the calls to begin(), end(), et al., must be qualified by boost::. But they also must say that the following is also well formed and has the same meaning: using namespace unspecified-namespace; boost_range_begin(x); I think you should also say somewhere (but not necessarily in the Concepts section) that unspecified-namespace contains the implementations of boost_range_begin(), et al., for the std containers, std::pair, arrays and null-terminated strings. I think that should do it. Does anybody have a better suggestion? -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com