"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:umzstxh18.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> writes: | It's not an entirely different argument. Peter was saying that once | you publicize the customization point, it no longer "belongs" to the | library. Imagine what happens if some other library wanted to use the | same range concept, but not depend on Boost itself. Either they'd be | picking a new ugly name for a customization point with identical | semantics :( or they'd be using the name "boost_range_begin" in code | with no Boost relationship in sight :(. | | As my wife's co-worker says, "it's a two-headed sword" ;-) | | For that reason, it might be better to use something like | "iterator_range_begin" that has a hope of becoming lingua franca like | swap. At least that's how I understand Peter's argument. Hm.. yeah...I guess you're better at expressing my point than I myself :-) iterator_range_ seems to be a good prefix. What do you say, Eric, do you like iterator_range_begin() etc? -Thorsten