"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uekcpcfg2.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | | I was just looking at using Boost.Range in my new Sequence library and | noticed the following: | | 1. The documentation of requirements uses names like range_iterator | without qualification. You need to add the boost:: prefix or | make it very clear that all names are implicitly boost:: prefixed | (as opposed to, say, boost::range:: prefixed). I prefer the | former; people may land on the documentation for reference | without reading all the introductory material. | | 2. Names like range_iterator in the requirements tables should be | hyperlinked to some documentation for them.
yeah, good idea.
| 3. The documentation you land on should clearly state in which | header those names can be found.
there is a header section.
I know that. But when you land on the documentation for range_value (for example) the header it's in should be visible.
| 4. Having a pile of names prefixed by "range_" (like | boost::range_const_iterator) just seems wrong to me when we have | namespaces. Is there a good reason we're not using | boost::range::const_iterator or boost::ranges::const_iterator?
decision made in review or post-review. people like it that way.
Count one more vote against, FWIW. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com