| > We chose "iterator_value" et al because we couldn't be sure that | > someone wouldn't need to make another concept Q in boost that had its | > own, separate notion of an value_type. If you then had a type X that | > fulfilled both the Iterator and Q concepts, how would you specialize | > value_type_of? | | It "iterator_of" and "value_type_of" were in separate namespaces | for the separate concepts, then they could be qualified or not as | the user sees fit using namespace aliases, using directives, and | full qualification. exactly. this at least one benefit of using namespace + _of postfix over prefixing with range_. If the namespace is hidiously long, the user can remove it or shorten it. but I would like to hear more voices on this issue :-) br Thorsten