Timeline for Why I have to write std::cout and not also std::<<
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2013 at 1:55 | audit | First posts | |||
| Oct 25, 2013 at 1:56 | |||||
| Oct 9, 2013 at 16:21 | comment | added | dyp |
@Matthias Interesting. For operators, you can either stop unqualified lookup e.g. via a using-declaration (member functions are still found) or you can use the explicit syntax (operator<<)(std::cout, "Hello, world!"). Live example
|
|
| Oct 9, 2013 at 14:46 | comment | added | Matthias |
BTW, ADL can be disabled by enclosing the function name in parentheses: (find_me)(x). I don't know if/how that works for operator syntax.
|
|
| Oct 3, 2013 at 6:48 | vote | accept | Francesco Bonizzi | ||
| Oct 2, 2013 at 0:20 | history | edited | dyp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Point out overload resolution
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 22:27 | comment | added | MSalters | As a Computer Scientist, this is the correct answer. As an engineer, I have a shorter answer : "By design. Namespaces are designed to require a limited amount of extra qualification. Enough to disambiguate, but not more than that." | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 18:29 | history | edited | dyp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1397 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:52 | history | answered | dyp | CC BY-SA 3.0 |