From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-15 11:33:04
David Abrahams <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
> Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.aau.dk> writes:
> > hm...what about
> > if range_begin() can be found in namespaces associated with
> > x.
> Not quite right, because range_begin() denotes a function taking no
> arguments. You really should say
> because it's an expression; it accounts for default arguments,
right, this is true.
> function templates,
specializations are found too, but we don't document what to specialize
> derived->base conversions, etc.
these won't happen as the default implementation
is the one in namespace boost::range_detail
which is a function template.
> > OTOH, isn't that just ADL?
> Yes, but the way you described it is just not correct; that's all.
> Oh, and I suppose an overload of range_begin in the global namespace
> would be found, provided it was declared before its point of use.
no, it wouldn't: the global namespace is never searched and
the default is chosen then, so a bit
the same reason that a base class version won't work either.
(arguably the base class version should be found, but that's a different
> That's why something like
> range_begin(x) if range_begin(x) is well-formed
> is more accurate.
I thinks ADL is the only mechanism that will valid here.
So with the change
if range_begin(x) can be found by ADL
I think we nailed it. This should implicitly account for default
arguments, but I don't think we need to mention that.
As a related issue, how was everyone feeling about range_begin()
instead of boost_range_begin()?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk