Subject: Re: [boost] [Iterator][MultiIndex]iterator-specificpartition_point-relatedfunctions
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-25 11:05:31
on Thu Dec 25 2008, Arno SchÃ¶dl <aschoedl-AT-think-cell.com> wrote:
>>>> Inviting users to overload in your namespace is simply not a viable
>>>> customization approach in general, so ADL is it.
>>> O.k., agreed.
>>> Why do you think ADL is o.k. for customizing boost::partition_point (soon
>>> std::partition_point, N2666), but not for customizing std::lower_bound? AFAIK, the
>>> same arguments apply to both.
>>Because nobody wants to customize lower_bound, upper_bound, equal_range,
>>and binary_search when they could instead customize partition point
> I thought about what you are really after. You are probably envisioning future
I wasn't thinking about standardization.
> where partition_point is a fundamental operation similar to swap,
> and lower_bound/... implementations must invoke ADL for
> partition_point, just like C++0x requires it for swap.
> As a start, we are now adding such a lower_bound/... into boost. Is
> that your thinking?
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk