From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:46:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010724174605.31361.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00644.html List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/3759; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: "David Abrahams" Cc: "Gabriel Dos Reis" Subject: Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names Date: 24 Jul 2001 19:37:25 +0200 "David Abrahams" writes: | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" | To: "David Abrahams" | Cc: ; "Gabriel Dos Reis" ; | ; ; | Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:12 PM | Subject: Re: libstdc++/3759: nonconforming use of unqualified std:: names | | | > "David Abrahams" writes: | > | > | There are open issues related to the problem I illustrated, but there's | > | agreement in the LWG that an implementation has no right to exhibit the | > | behavior I illustrated. | > | > The problem you reported is specifically issue #225 which is still | > open. I'm not saying your problem is a non-issue. The problem, | > if there is one, is in the Standard. | | I disagree. I agree with the LWG consensus from Toronto note you quoted | below - that there's no standard defect. The problem IMO is in libstd-c++. I do not agree. See Issue #229. [Post-Tokyo: Steve Clamage submitted this issue at the request of the LWG to solve a problem in the standard itself similar to the problem within implementations of library identified by issue 225. Any resolution of issue 225 should be coordinated with the resolution of this issue.] [post-Toronto: Howard is undecided about whether it is appropriate for all standard library function names referred to in other standard library functions to be explicitly qualified by std: it is common advice that users should define global functions that operate on their class in the same namespace as the class, and this requires argument-dependent lookup if those functions are intended to be called by library code. Several LWG members are concerned that valarray appears to require argument-dependent lookup, but that the wording may not be clear enough to fall under "unless explicitly described otherwise".] My personal view is that not all standard functions should be used qualified or unqualified; therefore there ought to be a list of which functions are subject to Koenig lookup. -- Gaby CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com