"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uzn5ho9vf.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes: | | > Dear All, | > | > I've put meself in a funny situation. I have a class with an begin() end() members, but I wan't to call boost::begin() boost::end() | > without the boost:: prefix so ADL is functional. Can that be done? | | We ought to be seriously considering the approach of | http://tinyurl.com/3tu8a for Boost functions that, like begin() and | end(), rely on ADL.
If I understand this correctly, then it would mean we can use boost::end( r ) etc and still get ADL lookup ( Cool!! )
If so, is there any knowledge about how portable it works?
It's as portable as ADL is. It won't work where ADL doesn't work; otherwise it will work.
| It may not solve the problem of accidental | conformance, but at least it allows code that invokes these functions | to be explicit about which algorithm is intended. If the boost | function can develop some intelligence about detecting concept | conformance of its parameters, it may allow us to avoid some | accidental conformance too.
yes, concept checks would be ok, but won't happen until the next release. I would say this is a manor problem.
I didn't mean concept checks in the usual sense so much as SFINAE. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com