Subject: Re: [boost] Ping to the admins (was Re: Boost.Operators issue: polluting namespace of caller through argument-dependent lookup)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-17 13:05:24
On 2016-02-17 20:57, Daniel Frey wrote:
>
> On the topic of fixing the issue reported: I realize that
> is_chained_base is actually a PITA when you try to add another
> namespace around the operator templates. I’ll have to think of a
> solution. Just a heads up for others: is_chained_base was placed in
> ::boost, not ::boost::detail. I assume this is an oversight as the
> documentation does not mention it and a comment in the source is
> implying that it should actually should have been placed in
> ::boost::detail. If anyone ever used it as part of the public
> interface, please speak up now! :)
Not sure about the purpose of is_chained_base, but might I suggest avoid
moving it into boost::detail. Bringing in 'boost::detail' into ADL is
almost as bad as bringing in 'boost'. This also concerns other types
that are used in template parameters of operator base classes.