[boost] Re: [range] breaking changes

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-07 13:06:27

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:u8y3u37j0.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| "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 
me

-Thorsten.