Re: [boost] Fix for some Interval library tests

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-12 07:56:42

At 10:07 PM 2/7/2003, Dave Gomboc wrote:
 >> I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar)
 >
 >How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL?  It's not that the
 >compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library
 >implementation isn't protected against ADL lookups where it needs to be.

The rule-of-thumb is to begin these deficiency macros with BOOST_NO_ to 
make it clear a conforming implementation does not need the macro.

So BOOST_NO_STD_LIB_ADL_PROTECTION might be a better name.

John Maddock is really the gatekeeper for this sort of macro, and he is 
also familiar with the Borland compiler. John, what do you think?

--Beman