From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-30 12:33:10
"Pavel Kuznetsov" <pavel_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Given this I would prefer to do the job required for (3), but if the
> boost community will oppose, I'll go (4).
> What do you think?
I prefer (3) because it will almost certainly pay off later for other
reasons and warnings. Isn't it hard to implement correctly for the
case where boost headers include other boost headers, though?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk