|
Boost : |
From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-23 11:06:09
Peter Dimov <pdimov <at> mmltd.net> writes:
>
> JoaquÃn M LópezMuñoz wrote:
> > The problem with this approach is that it is
> > allowed that stdlib implementors use extra template parameters.
>
> They are not, see:
>
> http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#94
>
So much the better! Is there any obstacle, then,
to forward declare STL containers so as to define
their corresponding hash_value overloads, instead of
including them? In the linked page it is said [quote]
"I can't think of any way that this extension could
break a conforming program, considering that users
are not permitted to forward-declare standard
library components"
Is this really so? Why cannot I forward declare a
stdlib component?
JoaquÃn M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk