From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-08 11:29:54
Guillaume Melquiond <gmelquio_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>> > I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar)
>> How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL? It's not that the
>> compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library
>> implementation isn't protected against ADL lookups where it needs to be.
> Sorry, but what is adl? (I tried google on this one, but since there is a
> c++ variant called adl, there was a lot of noise). I hope I don't
> misunderstand your sentence: it seems it's not the compiler which is
> broken but the library. So could you explain a bit more? We have tried to
> make the library compliant and I don't want to leave such a fault in it.
ADL == Argument Dependent Lookup == Koenig Lookup
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk