Re: [Boost-users] [graph][spirit][variant] Boost.Graph and Boost.Spirit incompatible ?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [graph][spirit][variant] Boost.Graph and Boost.Spirit incompatible ?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-04 14:51:54

AMDG

Jeremiah Willcock wrote:
> I guess I don't know how many programs use boost::get from BGL as 
> opposed to just get.  Users are supposed to use ADL to find get, at 
> least in generic code, but it would still have to be in boost because 
> that's where the graph types are.  Remember that BGL's get is part of 
> a concept so it needs to be accessible using an unqualified name when 
> called on a built-in graph type.  I don't see any obviously good ways 
> to do this -- changing Variant would break more code but the fix would 
> be simpler (since it's probably just a search-and-replace for 
> boost::get< and get< since people won't use those syntaxes with BGL).  
> For BGL, it might be possible to move the built-in property names (and 
> references to them would need to be fixed up), but that's a hack just 
> to get an additional associated namespace for the built-in definitions 
> of get().  The other fix would be to move the graph types, but that 
> would require user code changes as well; there would also need to be a 
> rule that graph types could not go in boost:: anymore. I added 
> [variant] into the subject line so we can get the Variant developers 
> in here and try to get this worked out -- it is going to be an 
> increasing problem as you said.

Do you know which BGL overload of get is triggering this?
IMHO, the graph library should not globally reserve a common
name like get.  Variant's overloads are well behaved, (they
should never match anything except a variant and will not
cause an error when they don't match.)

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe