Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 11:00:29

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:01:20 -0400, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>My proposal represents a much bigger change to the language,

And even that is questionable. David's proposal isn't so "small" as it
may appear at first, IMHO. And the syntax burden is enourmous.

>so I'm
>not sure "fewer costs" would be a reasonable way to characterize it.
>It's a fairly big hammer to hit the problem with: inside of the new
>"explicit" namespace you could sneak in any number of brand new and
>otherwise-incompatible language rules, e.g. allow perl code inside an
>explicit namespace ;-)

So you'll remove regex?? Seriously, I find that your proposal is well
thought out, clear and "natural". Is there anything we can do to claim
attention on it?

BTW, while reading it I noticed a few typos:

* this practice worked reasonably well, and is still being used
/effecively/ for preprocessor macros

*unlikely to compile correctly if a prefix were /ommitted/

* (possibly) explicit namespace new_std::
  Is the :: intended?

The fact that the paper hasn't had much consideration surprises me.
>From what I've come to know from electronic contacts with them, I
guess Bjarne and Peter Dimov, just to cite two, would be quite
favourable to it.

BTW, have you considered something like

 mutable swap
 using mutable swap;

for unqualified using-declarations? I find the second quite
expressive.

--Gennaro.