On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 10:00 AM Ville Voutilainen < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 17:49, Barry Revzin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Okay, but what would you do with the feature test macro if not: > > #ifndef __cpp_adl_template_whatever > > namespace voldemort::qt::lol { class get_tag { explicit get_tag(int); }; > } > > template <typename T> void get(voldemort::qt::lol::get_tag ); > > #endif > > > > ? > > Why do I need to answer the same questions multiple times? Copy-pasting > from > https://lists.isocpp.org/core/2020/06/9295.php : > > struct MyTupleLike { > #ifdef __cpp_adl_template_call > // the definition of get<> as a hidden friend goes here}; > #endif > }; > > I find it rather plausible that a simplicity-seeking programmer will > just not provide a structured-bindings > interface that he also wants to allow calling via ADL outside > structured bindings when an implementation > of P0846 is not available. > I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Is the claim that being unable to write get<0>(e) is a reason for somebody to avoid opting into structured bindings? Barry
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
