From: Gabriel Dos Reis (Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-25 13:17:21
Matt Austern <austern_at_[hidden]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | 2. As an alternative, should Boost libraries use Koenig lookup on compilers
| > | where it is supported, and use std:: for compilers where Koenig lookup is
| > | not supported? This results in a difference in user interface between
| > | compilers. For this to be reasonable, I'd say we have to advertise the
| > | overloading of names in std:: as a workaround for lack of Koenig lookup,
| > | which then makes it harder to switch to overloading std:: as a recommended
| > | approach should the committee decide this is OK.
| > Well, judging from the disussions amoung the LWG members, it is not at
| > clear that the committee is leaning towards removing that restriction
| > -- contrary to what you stated earlier.
| My guess is that this issue will be resolved by allowing users to add
| overloads within namespace std. I don't like that solution; I think it's
That is also my sentiment. But if your guess is true then we'd be in
the minority :-(
| ... However, I also don't like any of the other solutions that have
| been proposed. My impression of Core's position is that they are reluctant
| to make major core language changes like adding support for partial
| specialization of functions.
Feature like that need much more experience than we've now because it
interacts in many aspects in an unusual way template argument
deduction and overloading resolution used to. So I understand Core's
| It's probably worth restarting the discussion about this, and seeing if
| anyone has new ideas.
I don't know which of Boost, Core or comp.std.c++ is more appropriate
for this issue. Anyway, it would probably be useful -- before
restarting the thread -- to make an unbiased summary of all proposed
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk