"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d0il8i$jns$1@sea.gmane.org... | Thorsten, | | I admit that my understanding of the problem was too simplistic, and | apologize for being judgmental. no apology needed; it's good to discuss things. | (although I still think ADL-based solutions should be avoided, if only | because of the GCC issue. Or, the GCC support should not be claimed) I am myself irritated by the need to say using namespace boost; some_range_fun( r ); if nothing else, then because it is not super portable in itself. My suggestion have been to allow boost::some_range_fun(r); to support ADL via the requirement that users implement adl_some_range_fun(r); Can you confirm that this would remove the present problems with gcc? If so, I will propose this on the developer list and make it part of 1.33 br -Thorsten