Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> wrote in message
OK, but if we want the Range concepts fixed for 1.33.1 (we do, right?) then we have a bit of time pressure.
When you say fixing the concept, then I assume don't just mean the documentation? If the change turns out to require refactoring of the implementation, then it might be risky to rush into something.
I'm talking about the documentation. For the point release, I think it's very important that the documentation is an accurate reflection of the code,
right. I have been reading up on the old threads and also looked in the code. I had forgotten about the fact, that I already had implemented the ADL hooks. I'm sorry about the confusion my memory (or lack thereof) has brought.
and that some mention is made of the customization hooks (boost_range_begin() et al.). In addition to cleaning up the concepts specifications, the section on extending boost.range should say something about the ADL customization points.
I agree.
After the point release, I plan on taking a deeper look at the extensibility mechanism to see if it works on the broken compilers that boost supports. Also, I notice there is no Range test for the boost_range_* ADL hooks. That needs to be addressed as well.
Also right. I'll work on it for a little time now and then I'll commit something to the RC_XX branch. I hope you will give some feedback on it then. As fot the wg21 proposal, then this is certainly a thorny issue. I can think of these two sources that can be important to the proposal: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_active.html#218 and http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1792.pdf If I understand Sutter's proposal correct, no namespaces of template arguments will be considered. This would make the problem which caused multi_index_container to break in FOREACH. So, for example, namespace boost { namespace mpl { struct end { }; struct foo { }; } template< class T > int end( T t ) { return 0; } } template< class T > struct bar { }; int main() { using boost::end; bar<boost::mpl::foo> f; return end(f); } will now (in Sutter's wording) disregard the namespace boost::mpl::foo. (Of course we cannot rely on this currently, and it is of course not sure we can rely on it for C++0x either). Thanks for straightening this out. best regards Thorsten