Eric Niebler wrote:
Was that a vote in favor of an interval_min function, or a boost-wide utility? If we want a boost-wide utility (a good thing to have, IMO), what should it be called? boost::boost_min (kind of repetitive)? or perhaps boost::dependent_min to emphasize the fact that is uses Koenig lookup? Or just boost::min_?
Why not having both std::min and "dependent" min: #define BOOST_EMPTY template< class T > inline T const & const std_min(T const &a, T const &b) { return std::min BOOST_EMPTY (a, b); } template< class T > inline T const & dependent_min(T const &a, T const &b) { using std::min; return min BOOST_EMPTY (a, b); } possibly adding suitable workarounds for implementation that put min in the global namespace. I like the idea of having those as boost-wide utilities. I think that std_min(x, y) is nicer and more descriptive to read than (min)(x, y), but that's my personal taste. The separate name dependent_min make it self-evident even to the causal reader that it's something different from std::min/std_min. Just my €0.01 Alberto Barbati