From: vladimir josef sykora (vladimir.sykora_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 08:19:36
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Meanwhile, I am not sure what one can do about it besides switching to
> > another standard library implementation (e.g. STLPort). Well, I guess I
> > "separate" MPL sequences from the algorithms by putting the later into a
> > nested 'impl' namespace and bringing them back through a 'using'
> > so they are not found via ADL when one mixes MPL sequences and STL:
> > but I am not sure how reliable that would be. Hmm, it might even work.
> ...and it might not. Herb Sutter recently told me of some experiments
> he did which showed that GCC was doing ADL in many more than just the
> correct "associated namespaces". It's almost hilarious that so many
> things have conspired to make GCC so problematic in this area:
> too-liberal ADL specification in the standard, a refusal to qualify
> internal calls to the std:: algorithms, an un-useful interpretation of
> the standard w.r.t. looking up types vs. functions, and finally
> outright bugs in the ADL implementation.
IMHO, I'd suggest to change the name to a non collision one. I wouldn't like
to see (mpl + std) alienated with gcc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk