Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:10:20 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:

Gennaro Prota writes:

...

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:38:55 -0400, David Abrahams wrote: [...] not sure that Daveed's proposal has any more syntax burden than mine.

Yeah, please ignore my comment on this. I managed to completely misunderstand how the namespace() operator would be used.

After all, in my proposal you need to write something similar to enable ADL. Why do you think his proposal isn't so "small," anyway?

Well, I was considering not Daveed's proposal in isolation but its combination with Herb's restrictions. I should have said Herb/Daveed's.

If I get 1691, I'd probably also want Daveed's proposal.

Yes. I totally agree.

[...]

...

...

...

BTW, have you considered something like

mutable swap using mutable swap;

for unqualified using-declarations? I find the second quite expressive.

[...] Mutable was just chosen among the available keywords as the one which more closely could suggest the idea of a function call which can mutate, "adapting" itself to the type of the arguments.

...that logic doesn't work for me. There's no mutation going on. For me the presence of mutable there just creates mental dissonance.

I see, it could be just wrong perception on my part: as you know English is not my native language. What about using auto swap; instead? (Curiously that would be yet another use, together with std::vector<int> v; auto it= v.begin(); for a keyword considered practically useless :))

[...]

...

Thanks. If I decide to resubmit it I'll apply these edits.

Yes please, resubmit it. Though, once removed my misunderstanding, the other proposal looks sound too, I think the comparison can't but improve discussion and suggest new ideas or issues. BTW, I don't see anything in Daveed's paper which would allow ADL on a *name*, regardless of the number of parameters. Intuitively that would be something like namespace()::f; or namespace(...)::f; but it isn't mentioned. --Gennaro.