------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-08-12 06:19 ------- Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>)
"adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Herb Sutter's opinion (N1792) is a little different. He thinks that | ADL should not work in the OP's example, because distance is simply | not an `interface' of std::vector (technically, instead of from | human eyes). But it is also self-consistent. All those are assertions, little evidence. Notice that what is considered an "interface" varies from one individual to another individual. And we just don't have a definition for it, so you're still using your "human eyes" definition, i.e. projection of your own wishes. I was in the room when ADL was discussed at the last meeting in Norway -- and indeed, I was part of the people who fiercely encouraged Herb to bring forward "his modest proposal" (and that does not mean I agree with every word contained in the proposal, but my interest in getting the issue addressed). At that time, I was presenting possible ways the concept proposal may reduce the uncontrolled power of ADL. I have suggested that you give a try to the exercise of "name lookup". That suggestion still holds. Untill, you have done so it is almost certain then you will completely miss its the depth and ramifications. It is no Herb's opinion against mine. It is a matter of precisely and consistently defining the rules so that the most common cases are gotten right. No, it is not GCC's job. Furthermore, if you want to eliminate ADL effects; you have to break existing codes and ban ADL. Herb's suggestion already breaks some existing reasonable codes -- and he acknowledges that. You can argue from your notion of engineering and intuition, but that is all. And you have to have everbody else's notion of engineering and intuition intersect with your before moving. Once, the rules get written and ADL isstill supported, one will always find cases that is considered either "intuitively and obviously correct" or "intuitively and obviously wrong". The reason is very simple: ADL was *designed on purpose* to make overload set across separate scopes -- something which did not exist before. Once you're given that, all bets are off. The only thing you can do is to work to get what you consider to be the most common cases "intuitively and obviously right". And live with the rest. [...] | it is safer to have a better diagnostice message *now*. you get a better diagnostic when you can precisely spell out what alternate rules can be or give a precise consistent algorithms. You haven't so far. Just arguing. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910
