Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

"Steven E. Harris" writes:

David Abrahams writes:

...

My proposal, which was first submitted in 2002, has never been given any serious consideration.

Well, at least N1912 throws you a bone:

,---- | N1691 may remain a preferable solution to N1893 because it does not | break existing code. `----

If there are fewer costs with your proposal, it's hard to see why the author used "may" here. Picture the MadLibs version of this sentence:

__[noun]__ /may/ remain a preferable solution to __[noun]__ because it does not __[egregious action clause]__.

My proposal represents a much bigger change to the language, so I'm not sure "fewer costs" would be a reasonable way to characterize it. It's a fairly big hammer to hit the problem with: inside of the new "explicit" namespace you could sneak in any number of brand new and otherwise-incompatible language rules, e.g. allow perl code inside an explicit namespace ;-) OTOH, it's a big problem, and IMO warrants a big hammer. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com