From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-01 13:29:16
Steve Cleary wrote:
>typedef's are declarations (and not definitions), and therefore *should*
>work on conforming compilers (too bad we don't have one of those! :).
I didn't mean to raise a false issue. While there were problems with some
past usages, the typedef usage in the code John posted works for at least
the Borland/Metrowerks/Microsoft compilers, and may well work with other
current compilers, too. So maybe we ought to just go with the typedef.
>OTOH, we would still have to keep the "make up your own file namespace
>using at namespace scope" thing (which I'm not really fond of).
Agreed. The fewer special cases the user must be aware of, the better.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk