Boost logo

Boost :

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-24 10:44:37

--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Moore, Paul" <paul.moore_at_u...> wrote:
> I think the various issues which have come up in the course of my
> changes to rational.hpp could do with a summary. I believe that the
> are:

> As a consequence of these issues, there are a number of questions
to be
> answered. What I'd like to do is to ask the questions, then collect
> comments over a period, and then come to a decision for the rational
> library. I propose to wait until mid next week (the end of the
month, for a
> specific date) and then collate any replies.
> Questions
> ---------
> 1. Should Boost libraries only look in std:: for functions
specified in the
> standard? This effectively requires users of the libraries to
overload names
> in std::, and prejudges the committee's decision on issue (2) above.


There is an alternative, that won't require injecting overloads in
std::. Provide an alternative in namespace boost. This alternative
can use Koenig lookup for compilers that support it, and can be
overloaded for compilers that don't. Overloading in the boost
namespace won't result in violation of the standard, though the same
(theoretical) problems could occur there. I'm not sure this buys us
anything other than strict adherence to the standard, so I won't
recommend it over simply injecting overloads into namespace std
myself, but if strict adherence is the goal this alternative might be

Bill Kempf

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