Re: [boost] Views library in vault

From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-04-20 10:40:18

on 4/20/00 5:46 AM, Moore, Paul at paul.moore_at_[hidden] wrote:

>> I don't find these to be worth inducing undefined behavior
>> for, and I would avoid using this library for that reason. I
>> doubt such a library will find much acceptance in this forum.
> 
> On adding stuff to std::, isn't this currently very much a live issue for
> debate?

Not in my opinion. The standard is clear on this - it's not allowed. There
is a movement afoot to change the standard, but I wouldn't expect results in
that area for years to come.

> As Gary says "it's the best of a lot of worse choices" - I didn't
> read this as being a gratuitous violation of the standard, but more a
> compromise until the current issues on how to properly extend things like
> std::swap for user-defined containers and template stuff is resolved.

There is no conforming way to extend std::swap for user-defined templates.
In the meantime, we could introduce boost::swap() which admits such
extensions, but there is no pressing need to introduce nonportable undefined
behavior into boost.

> On the forward declaration issues, just include the full headers - it's just
> a compile time optimisation.

I agree with that.