31 Jan
2006
31 Jan
'06
3:43 p.m.
David Abrahams wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen <tottosen@dezide.com> writes:
Why was such short name accepted?? Even 'const_begin' that calls unqualified 'begin' breaks down Boost.MPL!!
This was a bug. In the new version there is no unqualified call to begin(), end(), size() and empty().
How so? What happens? Got a small reproducible case?
GCC ADL looks up a class named "end" too. Old story.
You need to read more carefully. A change from boost_range_end to range_end would not cause any interaction with the name "end."
no, but const_begin() called begin() unqualified. similarly for const_end(). -Thorsten