Re: [boost] Re: name clash

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-18 08:06:29

"Bo Persson" <bop2_at_[hidden]> writes:

| "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]> skrev i meddelandet
| news:m3n0rlvxy0.fsf_at_soliton.integrable-solutions.net...
| >
| > Some days ago, someone was wondering on this list (sorry, I can't find
| > the message off hand) whether the following construct
| >
| >    typedef reverse_iterator<T> reverse_iterator;
| >
| > were valid or not and reported that one of his compiler rejected it.
| 
| Yes, but
| 
| typedef std::reverse_iterator<T> reverse_iterator;
| 
| is accepted.

Yes, that is right as far the above doesn't happen in std:: and
namespaces that use std::.

| > His compiler was right; somewhere, the standard says
| >
| > 3.3/4
| >    Given a set of declarations in a single declarative region, each of
| >    which specifies the same unqualified name,
| 
| Note: "unqualified name"

Yes, with the key phrase "in a single declarative region".

-- Gaby