"Arkadiy Vertleyb" 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
