Date: 2001-05-31 06:18:26
Here's the simplest solution - people who have compilers without
sstream should use -DBOOST_NO_SSTREAM on the command line to the
compiler. No hacks necessary!
--- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <ross.s_at_i...> wrote:
> Jens Maurer wrote:
> > 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
> > > >BOOST_NO_SSTREAM in our <sstream>
> > >
> > > Is there a variation of this approach so only users of systems
> > > support <sstream> would have to worry about order of #include
> > >
> > > I don't mind making users of non-conforming libraries have to
> > > special, but don't want users of conforming libraries having to
> > > #include search order.
> > I believe that David's suggestion does exactly this: People who
> > <sstream> just ignore that there's some workaround deep within
> > People# without <sstream> need to fix their #include paths so that
> > boost's workaround <sstream> is found.
> If people don't have <sstream>, they don't need to set up their
> paths the way David suggested because there's no native <sstream>
> found, so it doesn't matter where Boost's <sstream> goes. So one
> solution would be to put a fake <sstream> somewhere in the Boost
> where it won't normally show up in the include path at all, and tell
> people with no native <sstream> to move that file to somewhere on
> include path.
> Ross Smith <ross.s_at_i...> The Internet Group, Auckland, New Zealand
> "Hungarian notation is the tactical nuclear weapon of
> source code obfuscation techniques." -- Roedy Green
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk