Re: [boost] Re: FOREACH / C++ "for" proposal

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 08:52:27

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "Anthony Williams" <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:k6m6f12b.fsf_at_yahoo.com...
>> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>
>>>> I think that the benefits of not having to include <iterator> and
>>>> confining this to a pure core extension not requiring library
>>>> support outweigh the costs.
>>
>> Agreed. I like the idea of this being essentially a rewrite-rule. If
>> it calls free functions rather than member functions it starts to
>> depend on what headers have been included, which seems rather
>> fragile.
>
> in what way is it fragile?

The meaning of the language construct for( type i: expr ) changes based on 
what overloads are visible. This is relatively uncommon for C++.