Re: [boost] Re: config/conformance issue

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-01 15:41:42

Dave Abrahams wrote on 6/1/2000 4:31 PM
>--- In boost_at_[hidden], Beman Dawes <beman_at_e...> wrote:
>> Kevlin isn't the only one suggesting just using the <*.h> C headers.
>> The first time I heard it, I was horrified.  But given how messy the
>> problem has become, the <*.h> C headers don't looks so bad after 
>all.
>
>One major downside to that course is that some implementations cause 
>the equivalent of "using namespace std;" if you #include even _one_ 
>such header.

FWIW, as of Pro 6, CodeWarrior will no longer be in the set of 
implementations which Dave refers to.

-Howard