Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
boost_range_end(). From the CVS history, that is what was implemented. But that is not what was documented, and it's not what your concept specifications require.
I have no recollection of this. To give you all a proper answer, I will have to reread the entire discussion. I don't intend to use my weekend for that, but I'll return monday or tuesday with a proper answer.
It's also not mentioned anywhere in the proposal you made to the C++ standardization committee, AFAICT. Customization points are *crucially* important to the Range concepts,
right.
and we spent a long time discussing it. You have ignored that. Boost.Range is a mess, the concepts are wrong, and so is your proposal.
Thanks. The proposal uses the same extension mechanism as the one in boost. Libraries must call the functions unqualified. I see no problem with that. My recollection is that having boost::foo() do ADL was *firmly* rejected, and so that is why I don't see the boost_range_end() being that important. The docs might be wrong right now, but that is of minor importance. Anyway, I'll respond properly later. -Thorsten