Daniel Frey <daniel.frey@aixigo.de> writes:
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
typename boost::range::value<T>::type typename boost::range_value<T>::type I think my personal view would be that I think range_ reads better than range::. Too many :: and it seems a bit confusing. I'm personally prefer to use namespaces to structurize the code, i.e. the typename range::value<T>::type notation. The range_value<T>::type notation unneededly clutters the global' boost namespace.
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? I had a horrible thought: boost::range_traits::value<R>::type -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com