[Bug libstdc++/15910] can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>)

["adah at netstd dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From adah at netstd dot com  2005-08-12 02:10 -------
(In reply to comment #79)
> Subject: Re:  can't compile self defined void distance(std::vector<T>, 
std::vector<T>)
> "adah at netstd dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>  
> | > Furthermore, and more importantly, GCC bugzilla is the not the place
> | > to record UNEXPECTED or PROBLEM with the C++ standard.
> | 
> | Is it a guideline of GCC Bugzilla that a PRoblem owing to the C++ Standard 
is 
> | never considered a PRoblem at all? 
>                       
> Ahem.  Can you read?

Show an official page.

> | If it is, please show me where I can read it.
> I'm very willing to do so if you provide evidence that you can read.

The only thing I can say is that you are an absolutely incurably rude person.

> | should be output.  If this function is in some namespace and the original 
> | function call is not qualified, then an additional warning on argument-
> | dependent lookup should be emitted.
> | 
> | Simple rules.  I do not think it is magic.
> Surely, your rules do not require magic.  They just appear nonsensical to
> me.  As argument dependent name lookup has become an essential part of
> C++ libraries, begining the standard one.

I do not invalidate ADL.  Just that ADL is causing problems, and some 
diagnostic messages (only when problems occur) can help people encountering 
these problems identify their problems.

Not only I am saying that ADL is causing unwanted problems.  I do not think 
Herb Sutter's opinion that the OP's program *should* compile is less authentic 
than yours.

> | No.  If I put it simply, then this behaviour violates the rationale of 
> | namespaces. 
> Which rationale?

Name separation.  People can use names freely (in their own namespace or the 
global namespace) without worrying that the name is used in another namespace.

> | This is not the behaviour I am currently requesting.  I just wanted to told 
> | Wolfgang there is a third way to `fix' the problem which I prefer better 
than 
> | his suggestions.
> Essentially, you're here just to argue.

I am afraid that it is YOU that are here to argue, and to *flame*.

> -- Gaby

Yongwei


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15910