Re: [boost] Fix for some Interval library tests

From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-13 07:27:44

> 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?

Sorry to be dense, but I don't understand the issue (I admit I haven't been
following this thread) do you have simple a test case?

Thanks,

John.