Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 18:00:42 +0300
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 17:49, Barry Revzin <barry.revzin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Okay, but what would you do with the feature test macro if not:
> #ifndef __cpp_adl_template_whatever
> namespace voldemort::qt::lol { class get_tag { explicit get_tag(int); }; }
> template <typename T> void get(voldemort::qt::lol::get_tag );
> #endif
>
> ?
Why do I need to answer the same questions multiple times? Copy-pasting from
https://lists.isocpp.org/core/2020/06/9295.php :
struct MyTupleLike {
#ifdef __cpp_adl_template_call
// the definition of get<> as a hidden friend goes here};
#endif
};
I find it rather plausible that a simplicity-seeking programmer will
just not provide a structured-bindings
interface that he also wants to allow calling via ADL outside
structured bindings when an implementation
of P0846 is not available.
> Okay, but what would you do with the feature test macro if not:
> #ifndef __cpp_adl_template_whatever
> namespace voldemort::qt::lol { class get_tag { explicit get_tag(int); }; }
> template <typename T> void get(voldemort::qt::lol::get_tag );
> #endif
>
> ?
Why do I need to answer the same questions multiple times? Copy-pasting from
https://lists.isocpp.org/core/2020/06/9295.php :
struct MyTupleLike {
#ifdef __cpp_adl_template_call
// the definition of get<> as a hidden friend goes here};
#endif
};
I find it rather plausible that a simplicity-seeking programmer will
just not provide a structured-bindings
interface that he also wants to allow calling via ADL outside
structured bindings when an implementation
of P0846 is not available.
Received on 2020-06-09 10:04:03