Rob Stewart <stewart <at> sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com>
Thomas Witt <witt <at> acm.org> writes:
That being said, I'll stop complaining now and we'll see what time will tell. It might well prove me wrong.
I'd rather hear some real suggestions
Yes. If there are alternatives that have been forgotten or that can be presented for consideration, we need to hear about them. Both Boost.Range and Boost.Iostream will benefit.
I tend to favor the shorter, less wart-like names range_begin range_end range_size It seems to play nicely with range_iterator etc Could we agree to move the boost_ prefix? I think the amount of costomization points that are needed is so small that boost_ qualification is not needed. -Thorsten