Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
I'm maybe an worrier, struggling with ADL invasions. But short names conflict.
true, that is why begin()/end() were abadened.
I maybe failed persuasion. :-) But "mathematically", I believe ADL customization must be full name that emulates namespace.
Well, I request tag-dispatching customization using class template partial specialization to next Boost.Ranges. Now that I really need tag-dispatching, I'm against ADL customization. I recall you said something like that. You were right. My current ATL/WTL CString range implementation code is horror. Will you add it to TODO list of next Boost.Ranges!
Can you elaborate on what exactly you would like to see?
For instance, ATL/WTL have four strings. They have the same interfaces. I want to share the implementation. You may say "Forward them to one implementation function", but:
template< class BaseT, class TraitsT > inline typename boost::range_iterator< CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT> >::type boost_range_begin(CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT>& str) { return str.GetBuffer(0); }
template< class BaseT, class TraitsT > inline typename boost::range_const_iterator< CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT> >::type boost_range_begin(const CStringT<BaseT, TraitsT>& str) { return str.GetString(); }
Even forwarding is horror.
right. not much to do about that. As Peter Dimov and others argued, you can easy forwarding, but the problem is that we still need free-standing boost::begin() and boost::end() on their own.
Moreover, the different version of ATL has different template parameters.
if ATL actually uses a namespace, you could add a unconstrained overload of range_begin/range_end. -Thorsten