From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-07 13:06:27
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > news:usm2379fu.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| > | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > | I don't think you mean "primary template," do you? You're not talking
| > | about using function template specialization are you?
| > I just meant they all have a default version (the primary template)
| > like
| > template <class T >
| > some_thing begin( T& r );
| That's a misuse of the term "primary template," which has a specific
| technical meaning. Why not just say "fully general overload?"
I'm using the meaning defined in "C++ Templates" p. 100.
| > | > | to prevent unintended ADL, I think it's even less of a problem.
| > | >
| > | > IMO there is no such thing as unintended ADL during a call to
| > | > boost::begin(). you always want it.
| > |
| > | By "unintended ADL" I mean what happens when the author of the begin()
| > | function that ends up getting called never intended it to be found via
| > | ADL for that particular argument type. I suppose I should have
| > | written "unintended argument-dependent matching" or something.
| > hm...I simply can't imagine somebody wanting that ADL should not
| > kick in.
| I don't see how you can say that and also worry about the "ADL lookup
| problem." It has to be one or the other.
maybe the concern is not needed. not changing anything is certainly easier for
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk