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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk