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. Regards, Daniel -- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey@aixigo.de, web: http://www.aixigo.de