------- Comment #9 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2006-04-20 08:20 ------- I believe it is a bug because my declaration should not be able to hijack the use inside the STL, which should only be seeing the declarations that were visible where the STL function was defined, which did not include any of my code. That is, my operator should not have been on the resolution list for the STL use. Your example has the STL declaration *after* the operator declaration, so the operator is visible. The test case I sent in had the STL first.
Also, even if my operator was visible, why was it called when it wants a specReg left operand and didn't get one? The other overloads also all want particular classes as left operands, and the STL case should have been none of them, even if they were visible. You have created a case where the left operand is int but mine declarations all have particular classes as left operand. The operator,() is used here as a metaprogramming device so that a comma-separated list can be eaten and and its elements lightly processed and then saved in a compile-time structure for later processing. The particular situation requires that the form be syntactically a comma-separated list, and some other operator or functional notation would not do. As I recall, the swapping template was because I needed to work around a language restriction whereby operator,() cannot discriminate on the second operand (being by definition defined for left operand and anything). The swapping let me double-dispatch so I could dispatch (in the second invocation) on what had been the right operand but was now the left. But I no longer recall. Is there anything in the Standard that precludes having a templated operator,()? I'd guess that the same bug might be evidenced with operator&& and operator|| as well, because these three have nonstandard (er - uncommon) binding behavior. Hope this helps Ivan -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26974
