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
>>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().
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk