Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

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

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:10:20 -0400, David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:38:55 -0400, David Abrahams
>> <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>[...]
>not sure that Daveed's proposal has any more syntax burden than mine.

Yeah, please ignore my comment on this. I managed to completely
misunderstand how the namespace() operator would be used.

>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?

Well, I was considering not Daveed's proposal in isolation but its
combination with Herb's restrictions. I should have said
Herb/Daveed's.

>If I get 1691, I'd probably also want Daveed's proposal.

Yes. I totally agree.

>[...]

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

I see, it could be just wrong perception on my part: as you know
English is not my native language. What about

 using auto swap;

instead?

(Curiously that would be yet another use, together with

 std::vector<int> v;
 auto it= v.begin();

for a keyword considered practically useless :))

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

Yes please, resubmit it. Though, once removed my misunderstanding, the
other proposal looks sound too, I think the comparison can't but
improve discussion and suggest new ideas or issues. BTW, I don't see
anything in Daveed's paper which would allow ADL on a *name*,
regardless of the number of parameters. Intuitively that would be
something like

 namespace()::f;

or

 namespace(...)::f;

but it isn't mentioned.

--Gennaro.