|
Boost : |
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-06 12:25:11
> This kind of unnamed namespace can be handled correctly by both MS
> compilers, with respect to pch, but I don't believe it satisfies the
> Boost naming convention. OTOH, if no other solution is found, this
> is the only
> way we can achieve typeof compliance with pch, while still staying in
> the unnamed namespace.
I'm surprised the any kind of unnamed namespace can be handled by PCH's:
after all each TU should get it's own distict name for the unnamed
namespace.
John.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk