Date: 2000-06-01 12:04:26
Dave Abrahams writes:
> on 5/31/00 8:55 PM, jsiek_at_[hidden] at jsiek_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > 4. Do what STLport does, and bring those names into std if necessary.
> 1. That's a privilege reserved to implementations (when you use the STLport
> you are changing implementations).
> 2. I don't want to get into the business of trying to make non-conforming
> compilers look conforming to code outside boost. That really seems outside
> our charter.
But what I care about is the code inside boost... the code you and I
and the rest of us write... I want to be able to write std::size_t
in boost libraries and not have to worry about it.
> 3. The STLport doesn't put them into std, strictly speaking. It brings them
> into its own namespace and then re-#defines std. That sort of thing seems a
> bit too heavy-handed for boost.
As some of the other posts have mentioned, what's the harm of pulling
them into namespace std if they aren't already there? Its just fixing
a broken implementation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk