From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-25 01:02:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>Hmmm ... I was aware of the theoretical possibility of this problem,
>>but I didn't know there was actual boost code relying on ADL with
> I don't see the problem. Wasn't the intention only to replace
> qualified std::min and std::max with (std::min) and (std::max)?
The intention was to remove the min/max hack from win32.hpp, and then
fix all the places where the min/max macros would otherwise wreak havoc.
That isn't limitted to qualified called to std::min and std::max. It
also includes unqualified calls to min/max, and also calls to
numeric_limits<foo>::max, and the declarations and invocations of all
min/max member functions.
-- 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