On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 02:40:02PM +1000, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:u65b93t6e.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | John Torjo <john.lists@torjo.com> writes: | | >>Let's assume this library is to be called Range Traits with | >> RangeConcept, ExternalRangeConcept and, | >> ExternalReversibleRangeConcept, can John/Mathew then find a | >> reasonable name for their concept: | | I'm afraid I'm going to object to any name of the form "XXX traits" | for this library unless it consists entirely of metafunctions.
even in tr1 regex_traits<> contains normal functions.
| If | not, can we just call it the Range library and leave it at that?
I have no problems with that.
Would it make sense to move iterator_range to this library as well? (given the fact it was requested to be separated from the string algo lib during the review) After all, it is a minimal encapsulation of the Range concept. If the library will not be only about the traits, it might be natural to put it there. Just my thoughts. Regards, Pavol