[boost] Re: config.h[pp]

From: Andy Glew (glew_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-07-15 12:00:29

> > + namespaces - hah! it's fixed now!
> >
> Actually, not.
>
> Well, the fix may be partial. That was the problem I had with operators.h.
> ... The problem goes away if you take
> everything out of the boost namespace.

Sigh.

So this provides a more specific question or instance of the variation problem:

Should Boost avoid using namespaces, because they (still) seem to be
broken with one of the most popular almost standards conforming compilers,
EGCS/G++?

Should Boost provide varieties which pollute the global namespace, as well
as ones which do not, e.g.:

        boost/no-namespace/operators.h:
            ...

        boost/operators.h:
            namespace boost {
                #include "boost/no-namespace/operators.h"
            }

Or should we wait for (or hope that one of us gets off our duff and does it
for everyone) GCS/G++'s namespace implementation to be fixed?

===

The various brokennesses of namespaces were one of the things that depressed
me most about EGCS/G++.  IMHO, namespaces are essential to well defined
libraries that can interoperate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications