From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-23 07:39:55
Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | Brian McNamara <lorgon_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | > I feel like most C++ programmers have become so accustomed to the
> | > "happy accident of structural conformance" that they think it is the
> | > common case. It's not. Aside from functionality named by (1)
> | > operators or (2) a handful of common names that have fallen into
> | > common usage (like "swap" and "clone"), the chances that
> | > some-random-library-
> | > is-going-to-just-happen-to-present-an-interface-which-exactly-
> | > structurally-conforms-to-the-concepts-you-developed-independently
> | > are nearly zero.
> | Most C++ programmers do seem to miss this.
> I don't think that is a fair characterization.
Touchy, touchy, Gaby! No need to get defensive of the whole
community! It's been my personal experience, in discussing the
potential problems with ADL, that most of the C++ programmers I've
spoken with seem to feel that it's just as likely as not that a random
unqualified call which conforms structurally is exactly the right
thing. I've had to pull out the above argument several times in the
past few years.
-- 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