"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:usm35lvo0.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes: | > no, I was going to find user's adl_end() function via ADL. So this changes the | > extension protocol | > to overloading adl_end() from overloading end(). | | So, how does that keep ADL from kicking in? It doesn't. no, we want ADL to kick in. | I guess the ugly adl_ prefix do you now anything less ugly? It clearly states the purpose of the function. | might protect you from most accidental | collisions, but I'd rather see something that couldn't end up being a | useful acronym in some other context | | http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?String=exact&Acronym=adl&Find=Find | | adl_end seems very likely to collide. does it? there is always some suffix, like _end(), _begin(), _size(), _empty(). on top of that there must also be collision wrt. the number of parameters. -Thorsten