"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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. >
IMHO, I'd suggest to change the name to a non collision one. I wouldn't like to see (mpl + std) alienated with gcc. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
