From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-28 04:28:51
> I don't really agree that the patches for the missing headers are
> fixes for STLport support. They are rather fixes to make boost less
> Standard library implementation dependant. There are of course not many
> available Standard library implementations on the market but it is not a
> reason to make this kind of shortcut :-)
Agreed, as a matter of fact I often wish there was a tool available for
checking that all needed headers have actually been included (rather than
included by accident as a hidden dependency).
> Thanks for applying those, I hope I will have soon a final fix for
> the bjam STLport toolset as for the moment they are not correctly
> 1. The fact STLport do not support the wrapper mode anymore
> 2. The modification in the library naming convention.
OK good, the msvc-stlport toolset is working with STLport-5 at present, but
the others aren't I believe.
> The last issue will then be the lexical_cast problem if you
> remember. lexical_cast used to not handle correctly configuration with
> no wchar_t intrinsic support but with wstring granted by the Standard
> lib. Have anything change lately ? If no shouldn't this kind of config
> be officially not supported anymore by boost ? I can do a fix to the
> stlport.hpp file for that if you need it.
Last time I looked I couldn't figure an easy way to make lexical_cast happy
in that situation, I'll try and have another look, because we really should
support this mode if we can (and the rest of Boost does I believe).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk