Re: STL operators != > <= >=

Article View: comp.std.c++

Article #1711

#1711

From: mfinney
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 20:11

12 lines
1311 bytes

In <40cbmh$liu@lyman.pppl.gov>, Etay Bogner <Etay_Bogner@mail.stil.scitex.com> writes:
>mfinney@inmind.com wrote:
>Its trivial that the "conflict will not occur unless both namespaces have a local using". I'm saying that 
>its also trivial to solve the ambiguity.

I understood your example.  But it would require introducing a dependency into
the order of declaration.  Which has been found to be a "bad thing" in the past.
I do NOT agree that N1::f() is the correct result -- I agree with the draft standard
here.  My only problem is that the draft standard should NOT be defining MY
operators -- and incorrectly at that!

Michael Lee Finney

Technical Details

Message-ID: <40dnej$spe@mujibur.inmind.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!matt

References:

<3vpmv5$4t7@mujibur.inmind.com> <3vpnrq$50c@mujibur.inmind.com> <MATT.95Aug7100148@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> <4065oq$3f4@mujibur.inmind.com> <407n9d$nb7@lyman.pppl.gov> <409bjt$59c@mujibur.inmind.com> <40ba9d$5ij@lyman.pppl.gov> <40brjt$343@mujibur.inmind.com> <40cbmh$liu@lyman.pppl.gov>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!matt
From: mfinney@inmind.com
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: STL operators != > <= >=
Date: 10 Aug 1995 20:11:57 GMT
Organization: In Mind, Inc.
Approved: matt@physics10.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Message-ID: <40dnej$spe@mujibur.inmind.com>
References: <3vpmv5$4t7@mujibur.inmind.com> <3vpnrq$50c@mujibur.inmind.com> <MATT.95Aug7100148@godzilla.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> <4065oq$3f4@mujibur.inmind.com> <407n9d$nb7@lyman.pppl.gov> <409bjt$59c@mujibur.inmind.com> <40ba9d$5ij@lyman.pppl.gov> <40brjt$343@mujibur.inmind.com> <40cbmh$liu@lyman.pppl.gov>
Reply-To: mfinney@inmind.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics10.berkeley.edu

Reply to Parent Message