From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-24 10:52:55
At 04:14 PM 1/23/2001 -0800, Darin Adler wrote:
>This has been discussed in the past on this list at length. Defining
>std::swap for a particular type might seem to be a "specialization" at
>glance, but it is actually an overloaded function, hence not legal.
>Here's a message from the middle of that old thread:
>I decided to ignore this issue after adding swap to smart_ptr.hpp, and so
>the std::swap specializations/overloads (I still don't 100% understand
>which) are still there even though they are theoretically illegal.
>At some point I suggest we make the call for how we're going to do this
>throughout boost instead of constantly re-considering the issue
>for each part of the library.
The C++ Committee's Library Working Group has several related open issues,
so anything we do now may change in the future.
That being said, it would still be helpful if someone could write this up
as a web page for boost, concentrating on the specific things boost authors
need to do when they run into the problem.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk