14 Jun
2006
14 Jun
'06
4:41 p.m.
On 6/14/06, Steven E. Harris <seh@panix.com> wrote:
me22 <me22.ca@gmail.com> writes:
Presumably if noncopyable were defined in namespace boost, then function calls involving classes deriving from noncopyable would get namespace boost added to the ADL scopes in which the function is looked up.
Even if the derivation is private, as it should be for such an implementation detail?
I'd hope not, but I don't actually know. Perhaps it's just being "better safe than sorry". It's possible that a problem was noticed on a compiler with faulty ADL or when someone did struct foo : boost::noncopyable { ... }; without thinking of the ADL implications. ~ Scott McMurray