From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-29 12:28:00
Daryle Walker wrote:
> This "solution" looks extremely invasive, given all the different places
> that could need changing. Maybe it's not worth it, considering the hit that
> anyone not using the Windows headers (automatically including anyone not
> using Windows nor an IBM-styled PC) takes. What was wrong with limiting the
> workaround to "win32.hpp"?
You're a little late -- the fix is done and checked in. No end users
take a "hit" as a result of this change. There were several things wrong
with limiting the workaround to win32.hpp and the have been discussed
extensively on this list. Please see the archive.
-- 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