On 12/20/2010 11:06 PM, Michel MORIN wrote:
Hi Sebastian, Thanks for your comment.
I suggest you rename the feature macro to BOOST_NO_STD_BEGIN_END and put it in the standard library part of the configuration (boost/config/stdlib).
I don't have strong opinion about renaming, but I'd like to hear other's opinions.
BTW, I'm beginning to think that using ADL barrier technique to boost::begin/end is enough to solve ambiguity call problems. [...]
Just to be clear, as you seemed to indicate something slightly different in another post: Do you propose to prevent boost::begin/end from being picked up by ADL; to prevent boost::fusion::begin/end from being picked up by ADL; or both...? Do either of these begin/end combinations actually *need* to be found via ADL (i.e., is that a desirable feature, regardless of it possibly breaking existing code)? Ranges adapted to work with Boost.Range (by defining range_begin/range_end) will generally have to be re-adapted to work with the range-based for loops, so I wouldn't think relying on boost::begin/end to be found via ADL to be too useful... Also, again to be clear: What are the tradeoffs between defining Boost.Fusion's begin/end in another namespace and bringing them into the boost::fusion namespace with a using declaration; and defining the data structures in another namespace and bringing them into the boost::fusion namespace with a using declaration; or both? - Jeff