From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 01:53:16
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 02:40:02PM +1000, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>
>
>
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:u65b93t6e.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> | John Torjo <john.lists_at_[hidden]> writes:
> |
> | >>Let's assume this library is to be called Range Traits with
> | >> RangeConcept, ExternalRangeConcept and,
> | >> ExternalReversibleRangeConcept, can John/Mathew then find a
> | >> reasonable name for their concept:
> |
> | I'm afraid I'm going to object to any name of the form "XXX traits"
> | for this library unless it consists entirely of metafunctions.
>
> even in tr1 regex_traits<> contains normal functions.
>
> | If
> | not, can we just call it the Range library and leave it at that?
>
> I have no problems with that.
Would it make sense to move iterator_range to this library as well?
(given the fact it was requested to be separated from the string algo lib
during the review)
After all, it is a minimal encapsulation of the Range concept. If
the library will not be only about the traits, it might be natural to
put it there.
Just my thoughts.
Regards,
Pavol