From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-30 09:36:17
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:uzn5ho9vf.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > Dear All,
| > I've put meself in a funny situation. I have a class with an begin() end() members, but I wan't to call boost::begin()
| > without the boost:: prefix so ADL is functional. Can that be done?
| We ought to be seriously considering the approach of
| http://tinyurl.com/3tu8a for Boost functions that, like begin() and
| end(), rely on ADL.
If I understand this correctly, then it would mean we can use
boost::end( r ) etc and still get ADL lookup ( Cool!! )
If so, is there any knowledge about how portable it works?
| It may not solve the problem of accidental
| conformance, but at least it allows code that invokes these functions
| to be explicit about which algorithm is intended. If the boost
| function can develop some intelligence about detecting concept
| conformance of its parameters, it may allow us to avoid some
| accidental conformance too.
yes, concept checks would be ok, but won't happen until the next release.
I would say this is a manor problem.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk