From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-24 15:32:05
Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> No, it's not what I meant. I wasn't suggesting undef'ing once and for
> all these macros. Since there is a suffix header, they could be
> restored. Or is it impossible to do with basic preprocessing?
Saving and restoring macros cannot be done with standard preprocessing,
>>and now use interval_min instead of min everywhere. Perhaps we can do
>>this once and call it boost_min, so everybody can use it. Opinions?
> Seems fine.
Was that a vote in favor of an interval_min function, or a boost-wide
utility? If we want a boost-wide utility (a good thing to have, IMO),
what should it be called? boost::boost_min (kind of repetitive)? or
perhaps boost::dependent_min to emphasize the fact that is uses Koenig
lookup? Or just boost::min_?
> In fact, it would be a bit more complex since min and max are not always
> in the std namespace, they can also be in the root namespace (even if
> they should not). The Interval library tests which compiler and standard
> library are used in order to find the correct namespace. But it's only a
> minor detail.
Noted. Thank you.
-- Eric Niebler 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