"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:42425A8C.1050209@boost-consulting.com... | David Abrahams wrote: | > "Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> writes: | > | >>But you still haven't given me a reason I can understand why it | >>shouldn't be "boost_range_begin()" etc.. | > | > Peter Dimov made some excellent arguments in the thread containing | > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/9718 (click the | > subject line to see the thread). | > | | It's true he made some excellent arguments in that thread, but this is a | different argument. ;-) Once you accept as a given that we should be | using an ADL customization point, what should we call it? | | In this message: | http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/9837 | | You say: "You're much safer using boost_range_end or range_end if you're | trying to keep it small. I don't see any reason to keep it small, | though: users won't be invoking that function directly." | | And I agree, it should be boost_range_end. We are in agreement. Now we | just need to convince Thorsten. :-) since we can't use the short version (ity clashes with range_size<TA) then let's go with the boost prefix. I'll commit shortly -Thorsten