[boost] Re: abs and swap -or- overloading vs. specialization.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-18 22:21:37

"Dave Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]> writes:

| Valentin wrote.
| >> I'm not absolutely sure what the policy ought to be for generic code, though
| >> I lean toward the high-labor, low-intrusiveness approach (option 2).
| >
| > Since there is no such thing a function partial specialization,
| > option 2 is unusable for any kind of generic code.
| 
| Of course. I must have been temporarily insane. Why there is no function
| partial specialization is a mystery to me, but that's beside the point.

Doesn't 'partial ordering' let you achive the same effects as "function
partial specialisation"?

I guess, the right question concerns the technical reason(s) for not
allowing template function overloading.

[...]

| > I understand that deserving a name in all namespaces isn't
| > pleasant.
| 
| I think you meant "reserving".
| 
| Ick. It looks like we're stuck with koenig lookup then.

Hmm, could you enlighten me? I'm lost.

-- Gaby