"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:ullgj9dly.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | Daniel Frey <daniel.frey@aixigo.de> writes: | > I agree. Also, the user can use namespace aliases to shorten calls, | > which doesn't work with range_. | > | > The difference for the user is also quite minimal, but using | > namespaces might also help to keep the library "cleaner" internally, | > as the algorithms in range:: can call each other without long names. | | Are we sure we want boost::range to be a namespace and not a class or | a template, forever? no. | I had a horrible thought: boost::range_traits::value<R>::type :-) (btw, how would you follow that in the iterator lib? std::iterator_traits is already there) The primary motivation for the namespace version seems to be shortening of names. So we can go from range_ to r::. so we save 3 chars. is that really worth the trouple?. Of course, other namespace can be much longer, but reasonable and short prefixes should be plenty; however it might also be worth something that a name can never be shortened, ie, it brings a certain consistency into the picture. br Thorsten