From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-08 18:16:03
Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> If we fix ADL for C++0x, I would favor what the proposal currently
> says (I think the fact that you can forget using std::begin; is of
> minor importance).
> If we don't fix ADL in C++0x, then we might consider (1) ADL
> customization points via range_begin()/range_end()/range_size() or
> (2) go for a class like range_traits<T>::begin()...ect.
ADL is going to get "fixed" by concept support, and not by Herb's
idea, FWIW. Just my opinion, but well-founded and I have no time to
go into details now (sorry). So if you think the shape of C++0x
should be a factor in this discussion, you should be thinking about
how all this relates to the concepts proposals.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk