Thorsten Ottosen <tottosen@dezide.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
MB <mb2act@yahoo.co.jp> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Dear All,
I have been trimming boost.range to incorporate the changes we have been discussing some time ago.
These changes will break many uses of the library. Inside boost this will affect
Boost.foreach Boost.string algo Boost.iostreams (*)
(*) I don't this will break
The list of major changes is the follwing:
1. ADL hooks renamed boost_range_begin -> range_begin, boost_range_end -> range_end
Why was such short name accepted?? Even 'const_begin' that calls unqualified 'begin' breaks down Boost.MPL!!
This was a bug. In the new version there is no unqualified call to begin(), end(), size() and empty().
How so? What happens? Got a small reproducible case?
GCC ADL looks up a class named "end" too. Old story.
You need to read more carefully. A change from boost_range_end to range_end would not cause any interaction with the name "end."
Thorsten, did you consider providing a backward compatibility layer for the transition?
Yes, but I don't have a good way to do this. putting the old version in, say, boost/range/v1 was rejected because of ODR problems.
Do you have any ideas?
I was thinking of a system that would (as much as possible) keep old code working, without substituting different definitions. For example, you could keep boost_range_begin and dispatch to range_begin. I'm not sure of the details, or how well it could work, but I thought it was worth considering. When thinking about it, keep in mind that we can detect the presence of an overloaded function that is supposed to be found via ADL. I don't know if that helps, but it might. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com