From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-23 07:34:31
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> > Ehm... the guidelines are a bit contrived. Why did you decide to kill the
>> > definitions in minmax.hpp?
>> There are several substantial threads about why the old definitions didn't
> I'm still at loss. Why minmax.hpp can't just undef macroses?
Because people want to use boost libraries with other libraries that
depend on those macros.
> And the guidelines Eric posted are pretty complex for "I want ADL"
> case. Why that can't be wrapped in a function?
> And really, what was the problem with the current minmax.hpp, except that it
> did not work on gcc-2.95-stlport?
Did you read all the threads?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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