--- In boost@[...].. , Toon Knapen <toon.knapen@[...]..>  wrote:
>  On Thursday 14 March 2002 11:37, you wrote:
>  > Salut,
>  >
>  > On Thursday 14 March 2002 11:20, jhrwalter wrote:
>  > > > BTW, when are you planning to change size1() and size2() into
>  > >
>  > > num_rows and
>  > >
>  > > > num_cols (as suggested by Jeremy and IIRC you accepted)
>  > >
>  > > Thanks for the reminder ;-) I'm not very happy with this
change, as
>  > > it breaks the libraries internal naming scheme, but if nobody
>  > > objects, I'll change this soon.
>  >
>  > Well, as stated before I'd prefer size1() / size2().
> 
>  we can have both. num_rows and num_columns could even be a free
function
>  (fits in your recent strategy of prefering free to member functions
(eg.
>  matrix::row -> row))

This seems to me like a good compromise.

Regards

Joerg