Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-19 08:42:41

Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>...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?

Why not 

    using static swap;

?? Just kidding.  I suppose auto has a little more resonance here than
static does, but I guess I just don't see the point in adding a
keyword there.

> (Curiously that would be yet another use, together with
>
>  std::vector<int> v;
>  auto it= v.begin();
>
> for a keyword considered practically useless :))

Yes, hence my joke about static.  The fact that static is overloaded
in so many ways is not generally considered a good thing.  Since
"auto" happens to be underloaded, giving it one useful role is a good
idea, but two?

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

If you remind me before the pre-meeting mailing deadline, I will
(mid-term mailings don't have much impact usually).

> Though, once removed my misunderstanding, the
> other proposal looks sound too, 

In what way?  AFAICT it's a band-aid (TM) that doesn't address the
root of the problem... except that it's not really a band-aid (TM),
because it also injures by breaking code.

> 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.

You'll have to talk to Daveed if you want a comment on that.

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