Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

From: me22 (me22.ca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-14 12:41:06

On 6/14/06, Steven E. Harris <seh_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> me22 <me22.ca_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Presumably if noncopyable were defined in namespace boost, then
> > function calls involving classes deriving from noncopyable would get
> > namespace boost added to the ADL scopes in which the function is
> > looked up.
> >
> Even if the derivation is private, as it should be for such an
> implementation detail?
>
I'd hope not, but I don't actually know.

Perhaps it's just being "better safe than sorry".  It's possible that
a problem was noticed on a compiler with faulty ADL or when someone
did struct foo : boost::noncopyable { ... }; without thinking of the
ADL implications.

~ Scott McMurray