Re: [boost] [Range] breaking update pending

From: Thorsten Ottosen (tottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-31 10:43:50

David Abrahams wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen <tottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> >> Why was such short name accepted??
>> >> Even 'const_begin' that calls unqualified 'begin' breaks down 
>>Boost.MPL!!
>>
>>
>>This was a bug. In the new version there is no unqualified
>>call to begin(), end(), size() and empty().
>>
>> >
>> > How so?  What happens?  Got a small reproducible case?
>> >
>>
>>GCC ADL looks up a class named "end" too. Old story.
> 
> 
> You need to read more carefully.  A change from boost_range_end to
> range_end would not cause any interaction with the name "end."

no, but const_begin() called begin() unqualified. similarly for const_end().

-Thorsten