From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-16 10:48:18
Mat Marcus <mat-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> In summary, at this point I see named conformance as possibly
> advantageous, especially as it gives us a place to hang needed
> remapping functionality. I don't think that instance declarations are
> the right place for implementation code to live. I am less interested
> in it from the preventing-accidental-structural-conformance
> perspective.
Maybe you should be more so. My suspicion of accidental structural
conformance springs from the real-life ADL problems that motivated
http://www.boost-consulting.com/writing/qn.html
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com