"David Abrahams" wrote in message
news:usm35lvo0.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
| "Thorsten Ottosen" 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
