From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3308 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2011 22:16:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 3299 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2011 22:16:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f41.google.com) (74.125.82.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:16:35 +0000 Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so3370748wwi.2 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.217.6.202 with SMTP id y52mr4804897wes.42.1301436994534; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.78.132 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:16:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4D8A2403.5050708@redhat.com> <4D90A209.2020508@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [C++0x] Range-based for statements and ADL From: Rodrigo Rivas To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , Jason Merrill , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg02038.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Thank you for your suggestions! IMO, error cases 3 (hey, two 3s!), 4 and 6 are not so likely, as including any STL container header will make a begin and an end functions declared, though maybe not usabe. In these cases the most probable error case would be 5. > It would be nice for users, but it's certainly more work, and > potentially more places for bugs to creep in. Yeah, you're right. I think I'll leave that for a future patch... Rodrigo