Boost logo

Boost :

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at