Gennaro Prota
...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?
Why not using static swap; ?? Just kidding. I suppose auto has a little more resonance here than static does, but I guess I just don't see the point in adding a keyword there.
(Curiously that would be yet another use, together with
std::vector<int> v; auto it= v.begin();
for a keyword considered practically useless :))
Yes, hence my joke about static. The fact that static is overloaded in so many ways is not generally considered a good thing. Since "auto" happens to be underloaded, giving it one useful role is a good idea, but two?
[...]
Thanks. If I decide to resubmit it I'll apply these edits.
Yes please, resubmit it.
If you remind me before the pre-meeting mailing deadline, I will (mid-term mailings don't have much impact usually).
Though, once removed my misunderstanding, the other proposal looks sound too,
In what way? AFAICT it's a band-aid (TM) that doesn't address the root of the problem... except that it's not really a band-aid (TM), because it also injures by breaking code.
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.
You'll have to talk to Daveed if you want a comment on that. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com