search for: n3000

On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:16 PMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: > In many places there is code that looks like: > > MBBI = next(MBBI); > > In C++0X there is a std::next that is likely to be in scope when these > calls are made. And due to ADL the above call becomes ambiguous: > llvm::next or std::next? > > I recommend: > > MBBI = llvm::next(MBBI); > > -Howard

In many places there is code that looks like: MBBI = next(MBBI); In C++0X there is a std::next that is likely to be in scope when these calls are made. And due to ADL the above call becomes ambiguous: llvm::next or std::next? I recommend: MBBI = llvm::next(MBBI); -Howard

...#submit_issue Please don't hesitate to ask me if these directions aren't clear (I'll likely update the directions from your feedback). Here is a link to the latest C++0X draft that your issue will be directing the LWG to modify: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n3000.pdf The inclusion of next() into C++0X wasn't my proposal, nor do I have the authority to pull it. But I can open an issue if you provide it to me, and the LWG will then consider taking the action suggested by the issue. -Howard