"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:422CEAE9.3020708@boost-consulting.com... | Thorsten Ottosen wrote: | > My suggestion have been to allow | > | > boost::some_range_fun(r); | > | > to support ADL via the requirement that users implement | > | > adl_some_range_fun(r); | > | > Can you confirm that this would remove the present problems with gcc? | > | > If so, I will propose this on the developer list and make it part of 1.33 | > | | | I admit I've only skimmed the ongoing discussion, but something like | what you are suggesting here should work, I think. How about this: | | namespace boost { | | namespace range_detail_ { | | template<typename T> | typename range_iterator<T>::type boost_range_begin(T& t) { | // ... | } | | template<typename T> | typename range_iterator<T>::type begin(T& t) { | // this uses ADL | return boost_range_begin(t) | } | | } // namespace range_detail_ | | using range_detail_::begin; | | } how this is exactly implemented in boost.range is of minor concern to me; I'm after the protocol. | | Recommended practice would be to always use qualified calls to | boost::begin, yes. | and then let users define overloads of boost_range_begin | in their own namespace and let ADL find it. yes, except I was suggesting to call it adl_begin(). | Does that satisfy everybody's concerns? (Probably not, but it couldn't | hurt to ask, right?) no, it couldn't hurt. -Thorsten