From: Shunsuke Sogame (mb2act_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-03 07:28:36
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Shunsuke Sogame wrote:
>
>>Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>>I read the long discussion why 'boost_range_begin' was born.
>>>>Did I overlook another discussion about the birth of 'range_begin'?
>>>
>>>
>>>maybe, there was some discussion about the problems of tying
>>>a concept to a library name. the range concept exists out-side of boost
>>>and any type T conforms to it if it implements range_begin(T&) and
>>>range_end(T&) etc.
>>
>>
>>Where the range concept belongs? "Global"?
>
>
> yep, in the sense that customization points are not tied to
> a particular library.
>
>
>>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!
Regards,
Shunsuke Sogame