This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [v3] More of condition_variable_any

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:12:20 +0100
Subject: Re: [v3] More of condition_variable_any
References: <4B6365CC.3000607@oracle.com> <4B65AF86.2040306@oracle.com> <4348dea51002021357j19528417t2371dae4127a9e4c@mail.gmail.com> <4B68A758.1000504@oracle.com> <4348dea51002021501i65e65cf1jc1606976604853f6@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/03/2010 12:01 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I was thinking ADL could find another function, because __atime can
> contain user-defined types from arbitrary namespaces, but I should
> have thought about it properly -- there are no lookup issues.
>   
Ah good. You know, we want a clear direction for this (minor) issue,
even if at the moment we aren't fully consistent. Anyway, if in the
future you will notice any strange special cases, please speak loud.

I'm thinking, in general: if the lay programmer had  to qualify
everything with this-> when writing simple classes (no templates, bases,
anything) I would come to the conclusion that there is something really
broken in the lookup rules (well beyond the known brokeness of ADL, I
mean ;)

Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [v3] More of condition_variable_any
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

References:
- Re: [v3] More of condition_variable_any
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: [v3] More of condition_variable_any
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] More of condition_variable_any
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]