------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com 2005-08-12 10:50
-------
(In reply to comment #97)
> Subject: Re: can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>,
std::vector<T>)
> "adah at netstd dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > you still fail to provide such a definition for "interface".
> | > -- Gaby
> |
> | Why should I?
> Because, it is *you* who brought that topic in this discussion.
> | Herb defined it in Exceptional C++, Item 32:
> |
> | For a class X, all functions, including free functions, that both
> |
> | * `mention' X
> | * are `supplied with' X
> |
> | are logically part of X, because they form part of the interface of X.
> That definition bans std::swap as currently usable
> with std::complex<double>, e.g.
> std::complex<double> w, z;
> swap(z, w);
Herb's opinion is that one should write `std::swap(...)'. `Swap' is just an
algorithm, and has nothing to do with `complex' per se. It is clearly stated
in Section 4.3 of his proposal.
> You would have hard-time convincing me that I want that behaviour for
> standard C++, let alone GCC. Furtheremo more, you have to define
> "supplied with". If N gives me
> namespace N {
> struct X { };
> }
> and M adds
> namespace M {
> using N::X;
> f(X);
> }
> is M::f part of N::X's interface?
I guess `No'. Herb's rationale is in C++ Coding Standards:
57. Keep a type and its nonmember function interface in the same namespace.
Please differentiate between what I request and what we discuss. I did not
advocate to implement Herb's proposal here. At least not yet.
Best regards,
Yongwei
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910
