From: Scott McCaskill (scott_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-17 15:10:04
> From: "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_[hidden]>
> > Firstly, the name mem_fun has definitely got to change. It
> > conflicts with the existing mem_fun in boost/functional.hpp.
> I wanted to hear your opinion on this.
> The name 'mem_fun' is intentional. boost::mem_fun (from mem_fun.hpp) is
> intended to be a replacement for std::mem_fun.
> To fix the conflict between functional.hpp and mem_fun.hpp, I propose that
> the functional.hpp definition of mem_fun be surrounded by
> #ifndef BOOST_MEM_FUN_HPP_INCLUDED
> The two libraries will then coexist as long as mem_fun.hpp is included
> before functional.hpp.
Are we talking about headers that are supposed to be able to be included
directly? If so, I don't think this is acceptable. Ideally, all header
files should be able to be directly included in any order, and this should
definitely be true for those that are meant for public consumption.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk