Re: [Boost-users] ADL comment in noncopyable

On 6/14/06, Kobi Cohen-Arazi wrote:

On 6/14/06, me22 wrote:

...

Perhaps it's just being "better safe than sorry". It's possible that a problem was noticed on a compiler with faulty ADL or when someone did struct foo : boost::noncopyable { ... }; without thinking of the ADL implications.

Whats wrong with that struct foo : boost::noncopyable { ... }; ? I assume that public inheritance will be a problem, or am I missing here something?

Nothing is "wrong" with it. However, the public inheritance would cause ADL to look in the boost namespace if it weren't for the fix under discussion. Since boost::noncopyable is a typedef for boost::noncopyable_::noncopyable, with the fix ADL includes the boost::noncopyable_ namespace instead of the boost one, which is not an issue since there are no functions defined in it. ~ Scott McMurray