Peter Dimov wrote:
>
> 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 users
> > that are not needed.
>
> What we want is to disable ADL, any qualification does that. There's really
> no practical difference between boost:: and ::boost:: in this case; the user
> is not expected to just drop identifiers into boost and expect things to
> work. They won't. We aren't required to document all identifiers in boost,
> so we reserve the right to not compile if there is a collision.
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* bar = new foo::A();
::boost::checked_deleter< A >()( bar );
Regards, Daniel
--
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
