From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-01 05:29:36
>From: "Anthony Williams" <anthwil_at_[hidden]>
> Toon Knapen writes:
> > I've been using my own std::is_sorted, std::iota etc. on
> > do not provide these extensions (snippet below). OTOH, I've seen that
> > boost/detail/algorithm does the same thing (but here all these are
> > the boost namespace, not the std namespace).
> > Now I think it would be interesting to provide these extensions for all
> > that do not include these to improve portabilitity of C++ programs.
> > boost/detail/algorithm.hpp be used for this (but in that case the
> > should directly be in the boost includes and not in a 'detail'
> > or would it be better to define these in the std namespace ?
> It is undefined behaviour to add them to namespace std, so they had better
> live in namespace boost.
If this is the case, what about the SGI STL/STLPort extensions to STL? Is
the clause about undefined behaviour to guard against possibly name-clashes,
perhaps (which SGI STL/STLPort may handle, but where an additional library
may not guard against)?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk