[boost] Re: enabling ADL even with namespace qualification

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-13 17:31:44

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:u7js29ae4.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> | Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> | > But maybe someone else has a better (and robust enough) idea how
> | > to detect which f(x) would be called...
> |
> | You can use something like what boost/detail/is_incrementable.hpp
> | is doing, but I think that's basically the same technique you're
> | using.  And this seems to be exactly what I was talking about on
> | the NG when I suggested removing ambiguity by detecting whether
> | there's a function that could be found via ADL... or am I missing
> | something?
>
> are this all very complicated compared to what we want to
> achieve. wouldn't it be better just to stick to the using detail::XX
> trick and then write on the portability page that for best
> portability, always include new overloads before the range library.

I don't know what you're suggesting precisely, nor what problem we're
trying to solve globally, so I can't answer.  Maybe if someone could
synthesize this all into a short description it would be easier.
-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com