From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-11 14:51:23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
> > I very much like the free function interface, but there is always the
> > 225/229 issue to be aware of. I am growing more convinced that under the
> > current language rules, having an additional tag argument which ties the
> > function to a namespace's semantics is the only good answer... but
> > another topic I guess.
> Another option is to just specify that these functions are always in the
> boost namespace, and people have have define their overloads in boost.
That could limit the techniques available to generate the functions. For
example, the B&N trick will not work in that case, since "friend-only"
functions must always be called unqualified.
I am also not fond of the idea of requiring users to leave their own
namespace and enter boost to define operations on their own classes. Aside
from the fact that it intrudes on our namespace, it is messier and more
error-prone than simply adding a boost::tag argument to their free
functions. There are lots of precedents here which I'd rather not set!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk