Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 18:36:03

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:38:55 -0400, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>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?

Sorry, I thought the proposal was by Daveed (and not "David")
Vandevoorde, because his name appears in the upper right corner of the
first page. And the text talks about Herb in third person.

>> So you'll remove regex?? 
>
>>From what?  Sorry, but what _are_ you talking about?

Keep your hair on, that was a quip, as you said one could directly use
Perl ;)

>> 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.

Attending the meeting is absolutely beyond me. Can one join the
evolution group list anyway?

>> 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.

Yes, it's intended? What's the difference with the other examples,
where "::" doesn't appear?

>> 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.

Very true, unfortunately.

>And Peter Dimov has never been
>to a meeting, so I'm usually representing his point of view, not the
>other way around.

And I thought he was in the CWG :-(

>
>> 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?

Strictly speaking it adds nothing. It would "just" make the construct
stand out more, and distinguishable at first sight from a normal using
declaration. Mutable was just chosen among the available keywords as
the one which more closely could suggest the idea of a function call
which can mutate, "adapting" itself to the type of the arguments. Of
course if we were totally free to choose words we would probably go
for something like

 enable ADL on swap;

Oh, I think I found another typo here (not sure what the fix is):

  "Since they are perfectly easy, and will unintended ADL will
   pass unnoticed through all but the most sadistic tests"...

Sincerely,

--Gennaro.