search for: submit_issu

...pular name; if it breaks llvm, I'd expect this standards change to break a lot of existing code. Do you really want to do that? I'm happy to open an LWG issue for you on this subject. Here are directions on submitting an issue: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#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 T...

...'d expect this standards change to break a lot of existing code. Do you really want to do that? >> > > I'm happy to open an LWG issue for you on this subject. Here are directions on submitting an issue: > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#submit_issue > It may be premature, but a resolution for the issue would be the same thing Boost does in this case: put the function in a subnamespace and introduce it to std via using declaration. I believe this should prevent it from being found via ADL. (Or does that only work the other way round?)...

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