-Original Message-
From: David Abrahams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm, I don't recall that one. Care to refresh my memory? ;-)
Maybe they're the same discussion...
Yes, that was the discussion, and I apparently remembered things
incorrectly. Thanks for the refresher.
Jason
Daniel Frey wrote:
Hi,
I came across the following problem:
When I have a class X which lives in a namespace where there's a
function 'checked_delete' declared that can take a X*, smart_ptr (and
probably others) that use checked_deleter (note the 'r'!) cannot call
checked_delete. It's
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been making such a stink about insidious ADL!
Is there any programatic way to detect them?
I've been
At 08:34 AM 2/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been making such a stink about insidious ADL!
Is there any
Beman Dawes wrote:
At 08:34 AM 2/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been making such a stink
Daniel Frey wrote:
Any reason why you went for 'boost::' instead of '::boost::' for the
prefix? IMO only the latter expresses exactly what we want or do we
rely on user to never create sub-namespaces called 'boost'? Although
this is not very likely, we shouldn't place any restrictions on
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 08:34 AM 2/25/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Go ahead and make the change, unless someone voices an objection.
I'm wondering how may other places we have similar problems?
Now you know why I've been
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hum, it looks like Microsoft took you up on it. See the
shared_ptr_test warning on the VC++ 7.1 beta regression test.
No, C4675 is the opposite of what Dave wants. Earlier MSVC didn't support
ADL at all, and MSVC 7.1 is now issuing the warning for every
Daniel Frey wrote:
I wasn't thinking of the user to drop things into boost, this is
obvbiously not supported. I was thinking of this:
namespace foo {
namespace boost { // -- Is this allowed by boost?
template typename T
void checked_delete( T* );
}
class A {};
}
foo::A*
Peter Dimov wrote:
Your example works for me. Qualified identifiers such as
boost::checked_delete disable ADL, and foo::boost::checked_delete isn't
found.
I wasn't aware of this, so I assume that this is the standard's way of
handling it and not just some compilers. Thanks.
Regards, Daniel
From: David Abrahams Hum, it looks like Microsoft took you up on it. Well, it was MS I was haranguing most-loudly about it.
I don't recall a discussion on warnings about ADL, I'll need a refresher. I do recall a discussion we had on non-dependent names.
See the shared_ptr_test warning on the
Hi,
I came across the following problem:
When I have a class X which lives in a namespace where there's a function
'checked_delete' declared that can take a X*, smart_ptr (and probably others)
that use checked_deleter (note the 'r'!) cannot call checked_delete. It's
ambiguous due to argument
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I have a class X which lives in a namespace where there's a function
'checked_delete' declared that can take a X*, smart_ptr (and probably others)
that use checked_deleter (note the 'r'!) cannot call checked_delete. It's
ambiguous due to argument
At 07:32 PM 2/24/2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
Hi,
I came across the following problem:
When I have a class X which lives in a namespace where there's a function
'checked_delete' declared that can take a X*, smart_ptr (and probably
others)
that use checked_deleter (note the 'r'!) cannot call
14 matches
Mail list logo
