Re: [boost] config/conformance issue

From: Alan Griffiths (alan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-01 15:20:54

In message <200006011704.MAA00845_at_[hidden]>,
jsiek_at_[hidden] writes
>Dave Abrahams writes:
> > 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.

_That_ can be supported by pulling stuff into ::boost::std - which stays
well clear of ::std.  But since we are talking non-conforming
implementations I can think of one whose name lookup is problematic
enough without playing such tricks.
-- 
Alan Griffiths  (alan_at_[hidden])  http://www.octopull.demon.co.uk/
ACCU Chairman   (chair_at_[hidden])             http://www.accu.org/