Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dean Sturtevant (deansturtevant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-21 17:15:14

--- In boost_at_[hidden], Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
> Could we have a boost/std-bugfix with the following policy:
> "The boost/std-bugfix directory contains header files with the
> same name as the ISO C++ standard header files, with a .hpp suffix
> appended, e.g. boost/std-bugfix/iterator.hpp. These files intend
> to provide bug fixes to the vendor-provided standard library
> implementations while these implementations are in the process of
> becoming ISO conformant. If some header file in boost/std-
> exists, you should use it unconditionally when writing boost code
> instead of the standard <XXX>, so that portability is enhanced.
> All names in these headers should be in namespace boost or
> boost::detail."
I don't quite see how portability is enhanced by not including <XXX>
exactly when boost/std-bugfix/XXX.hpp exists. It seems that the only
reason that the XXX.hpp exists is if the compiler-provided header is
non-conforming, in which case everybody should use it! (Not just
boost code). Also, perhaps std-bugfix files are provided after the
submission. I don't think there's any easy solution to the problem,
or even a good one (apart from providing a conforming implementation!)

Here's an alternative suggestion:
Instead of the XXX.hpp files in boost/std-bugfix, have XXX files.
Clients should make sure boost/std-bugfix is searched before the
include path for the standard library. There would be a special file
in boost/std-bugfix that's included in every necessary boost header
just to make sure the client has the include paths set up right.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at