Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-31 14:14:34

Thorsten Ottosen <tottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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().

The claim was that a name change caused breakage. Note that my
questions, "How so?...", etc. were posed to the OP of that claim, not
to your assertion that there were incorrect unqualified calls in the
library. Your response to my question does not address it.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at