Re: [boost] This isn't really nonconformance (was: Re: (list a1 a2 ... aN)proposed implementation)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-20 08:06:29

From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>
> You shouldn't call this non-conforming.  The word "nil" isn't mentioned in
> the C++ standard.  We have no higher right to use it than anyone else.  It
> may be annoying, but Apple doesn't have to have any mandate to get rid of
> it.

Yes, technically you are right.

The situation we're facing, however, is close to the <windows.h> min/max
macros. <windows.h> had the macros before min/max became part of std::, but
this didn't stop the committee.

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.