Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
Please enlighten me as to the proper way to extend your library.
<snip>
way 2: (lacking from docs)
(a) provide free-standing member in namespace of the UDT: - begin() - end() - size()
(b) provide specializations for
- boost::range_itetator - boost::range_const_iterator - boost::range_value - boost::range_difference - boost::range_size
A library might choose not to call boost::begin/end/size unqualified...in which case that library does not support UDTs.
Does it make sense? Have I forgotten something?
It does *not* make sense, and I think you forgot the long discussion we had on this topic with Dave A. and Peter D. on the boost.users list. (Thread starts here: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2005/03/10242.php) See http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2005/03/10391.php where you wrote: "So this changes the extension protocol to overloading adl_end() from overloading end()." You also seem to be forgetting the Range concepts that you yourself documented here: http://boost.org/libs/range/doc/range.html. In the concepts, the calls to begin()/end() are REQUIRED to be qualified. So I'll ask again, what is the proper way to extend your library? While we're on the topic, what is the point of range_value, range_difference and range_size? Will range_value<Range>::type ever be different than std::iterator_traits<range_iterator<Range>::type>::value_type? If the answer is no, then why do we need range_value? -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com