Re: [boost] config/conformance issue

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
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.

-Jeremy