Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 16:38:55

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

?? David's?   Do you mean Herb's?

>>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?? 

>From what?  Sorry, but what _are_ you talking about?

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

Attend the next committee meeting.  Get on the evolution group mailing
list and discuss it there in the meantime.  Submit the proposal for
the mid-term mailing, and most especially for the pre-meeting mailing.

> 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/

Thanks.

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

Yes.

> 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.

You don't know Bjarne very well, then.  And Peter Dimov has never been
to a meeting, so I'm usually representing his point of view, not the
other way around.

> BTW, have you considered something like
>
>  mutable swap
>  using mutable swap;
>
> for unqualified using-declarations? I find the second quite
> expressive.

What does the mutable keyword add, and how is it semantically
appropriate?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com