Re: [boost] Boost.Operators issue: polluting namespace of caller through argument-dependent lookup

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Operators issue: polluting namespace of caller through argument-dependent lookup
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-18 14:47:00

On 2016-01-18 22:36, Daniel Frey wrote:
>
>> On 18.01.2016, at 20:11, Andrey Semashev
>> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-01-18 21:03, Daniel Frey wrote:
>>>> On 17.01.2016, at 10:51, John M. Dlugosz
>>>> <mpbecey7gu_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The use of make_shared is finding boost::make_shared as well
>>>> as std::make_shared.  The program doesn't use boost::shared_ptr
>>>> and shouldn't need to know about it.
>>>
>>> This can not be simply “fixed” as it is quite an old and
>>> established interface. What about the people that actually rely
>>> on ADL to kick in to find their unqualified call of make_shared?
>>
>> Given that there is BOOST_NO_OPERATORS_IN_NAMESPACE, I don't think
>> that the addition of the boost namespace to ADL was ever intended.
>> I would rather see this fixed and the code that relies on this side
>> effect broken (with the appropriate note in the release notes and
>> the advice to use namespace qualification to resolve the problem).
>
> I think that BOOST_NO_OPERATORS_IN_NAMESPACE is meant to put
> everything into the global namespace, at least that’s what the
> comment in Boost.Operators is saying. This is quite different from
> putting them into an additional nested namespace (e.g. operator_impl)
> and adding a “using namespace operator_impl;” into namespace boost.
> And from what I remember, this was required as a work-around for bugs
> in some very old compilers.

The point is that the boost namespace is not guaranteed to be introduced 
to ADL, so one can't rely on that.

> That said, I sympathize with fixing the issue when possible. Maybe we
> could change the default behavior, but offer the old implementation
> when the user sets BOOST_PLACE_OPERATORS_IN_NAMESPACE_BOOST. And that
> is only effective when BOOST_NO_OPERATORS_IN_NAMESPACE is *not* used
> (to avoid breaking the old compilers). Opinions?

Sounds good to me.