"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:42420638.2070604@boost-consulting.com... | | Thorsten Ottosen wrote: | > "Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message | > | But we can still come up with a convention used by any *new* ADL | > | customization points. That's what you're asking about anyway, right? | > | > yes, agreed. | > | > | > | > | > Free-standing functions seems to have slightly different | > | > goals. | > | | > | | > | You lost me. What goals? | > | > that boost:::foo() does ADL. | > | > new_clone() is used primarily inside the | > containers and does therefore not suffer much | > inconvenience. | | | I'm still lost. What inconvenience? the fact that you normally would have to write using namespace boost; begin(r);
true, that could happen. the difference being that we might not. | > In some sense it also seems wierd that the same customization point | > should have different points in different libararies. Seems redundant. | | | What is redundant? What different libraries? We're talking about the ADL | customization points of /one particular library/.
are we? The thing is IMO that were are talking about customization points of a concept, not a particular library. | A customization point | cannot be in two libraries simultaneously. I must have missed your point | again. Please set me straight. struct Foo { ... this is a range with adaptation ... } iterator boost_range_begin( Foo& f ); iterator std_range_begin( Foo& f ); iterator adope_range_begin( Foo& f ); what is the difference between the three functions, apart from their name? | > Another set of names could be | > | > begin_range() | > end_range() | > size_range() | | | But you still haven't given me a reason I can understand why it | shouldn't be "boost_range_begin()" etc.. I'm saying that it might not be the right solution; I don't see why we should give the same concept different interfaces. We are already protecting classes by a namespace, shouldn't that be enough. -Thorsten