From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-30 14:31:37
Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 10:01 PM 5/28/2001, David Abrahams wrote:
> >How about this?
> >Targets wishing to use sstream simply #include it.
> >We add our own <sstream> to the path /behind/ the system #includes, so it
> >will only be found if the implementation fails to conform. We #define
> >BOOST_NO_SSTREAM in our <sstream>
> Is there a variation of this approach so only users of systems which don't
> support <sstream> would have to worry about order of #include paths?
> I don't mind making users of non-conforming libraries have to do something
> special, but don't want users of conforming libraries having to worry about
> #include search order.
I believe that David's suggestion does exactly this: People who have
<sstream> just ignore that there's some workaround deep within boost.
People# without <sstream> need to fix their #include paths so that
boost's workaround <sstream> is found.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk