On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:34 PM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 02:29, Richard Smith <richardsmith_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >> I don't know what that "somewhere" would be, nor do I know why I'd
> >> write a using-declaration for somewhere::get.
> >
> >
> > Consider:
> >
> > // user.h
> > struct get {};
> >
> > // user.cc
> > #include "user.h"
> > #include <QPair>
> >
> > That won't compile with your above approach. Unqualified lookup for
> 'get' finds the user's struct ::get, so ADL is not performed. Adding the
> using-declaration fixes the problem:
>
> Sure, I understood what you meant before.
>
> >
> > // QPair
> > namespace detail {
> > template<int> void get(...) = delete;
> > }
> > void whatever() {
> > using detail::get; // add this to fix the problem
> > QPair<What, Ever> qp;
> > get<1>(qp); // ::get not found by unqualified lookup, so ADL is
> performed now
> > }
> >
> > If you have some default implementation of 'get' (such as a general
> unspecialized one), then you could 'using' that instead of using a
> placeholder one like detail::get.
>
> Right; I have no intention of forcing my users or recommending that
> anyone else forces their users
> to write a using-declaration whenever they want to use a tuple-like
> interface on their types, even if it
> can sometimes theoretically clash with namespace-scope non-functions.
>
> We have a language fix that makes hidden friend templates work with
> ADL when template arguments are provided
> for a call. We have work-arounds that don't come even close to
> achieving the same functionality.


The way I see it is that we have an idiom (or "workaround" if you prefer)
that works reliably and provides a superset of the functionality of P0846.
(The language-level approach, by contrast, works in strictly fewer cases,
and lacks the functionality of letting you choose to provide a custom
fallback.) What functionality is missing from the 'using + ADL call' idiom
that P0846 provides?

It would seem
> rather reasonable to allow programmers to detect when they can use the
> new superior functionality.
>

The SG10 policy has historically been to not include a feature test macro
where there is a simple syntactic alternative that gets you the same
functionality regardless of compiler support. As far as I'm aware, there
is, in this case.