Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Meanwhile, I am not sure what one can do about it besides switching to
> another standard library implementation (e.g. STLPort). Well, I guess I can
> "separate" MPL sequences from the algorithms by putting the later into a
> nested 'impl' namespace and bringing them back through a 'using' directive
> so they are not found via ADL when one mixes MPL sequences and STL:
...
> but I am not sure how reliable that would be. Hmm, it might even work.
...and it might not. Herb Sutter recently told me of some experiments
he did which showed that GCC was doing ADL in many more than just the
correct "associated namespaces". It's almost hilarious that so many
things have conspired to make GCC so problematic in this area:
too-liberal ADL specification in the standard, a refusal to qualify
internal calls to the std:: algorithms, an un-useful interpretation of
the standard w.r.t. looking up types vs. functions, and finally
outright bugs in the ADL implementation.
depressed-ly y'rs,
Dave
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
