Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-17 09:10:20

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

Oh, it is.  I thought we were talking about a different paper.  I'm
not sure that Daveed's proposal has any more syntax burden than mine.
After all, in my proposal you need to write something similar to
enable ADL.  Why do you think his proposal isn't so "small," anyway?
If I get 1691, I'd probably also want Daveed's proposal.

>>> 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 ;)

Sorry, I should have told you I was born with a terrible handicap: no
sense of humor.

>>> 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?

Sometimes that can be arranged.  You can send a request to Andy Koenig
<ark_at_[hidden]>; I think he's still the point of contact for the
reflectors.

>>> 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?

I was mistaken; it's a leftover from the first version of the paper.

>>
>>> 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. 

I don't think it really helps, and...

> 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. 

...that logic doesn't work for me.  There's no mutation going on.  For
me the presence of mutable there just creates mental dissonance.

> 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"...

Thanks.  If I decide to resubmit it I'll apply these edits.

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