Boost logo

Boost :

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-12 13:28:31

John Maddock wrote:

>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> a) Sprinkle #ifdef BORLAND in those 14 files
>> b) Tweak cpp_c_headers files
>> c) Or ? what?
>> What is the least worst way to handle this?
>> If I have to use a) what is the point of even having cpp_c_headers?

>Here's the problem: those headers were only supplied as a workaround for
>compilers that don't supply new style headers at all, they all use the
>following workaround:

>#include <string.h>

>namespace std{ using ::memcpy; } //etc

>However for conforming compilers this is defective for two reasons:

>It needlessly introduces C functions into the global namespace (including
><cstring> should not do that).
>It shouldn't compile at all: memcpy is already declared in std, the version
>in the global namespace is an alias introduced with a using declaration,and
>importing it back into std *should fail*.

>Now the interesting thing is, I know of only two vendors who are shipping
>std conforming C headers: Borland and Metrowerks. Since you don't mention
>the latter my guess is you're not testing with it ;-)

>The normal workaround that Boost libs have been using is:

>#include <cstring>
>#include <boost/config.hpp>
>namespace std{ using ::memcpy; }

OK, I can live with this. But if cpp_c_headers has conditioned on the
compiler then what is the point of having it all? What use can it have?

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at