From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-20 01:18:59
Beman Dawes wrote:
> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>> I did a brief survey of boost 1.33.1 and found many "relaxed" uses of
>>> <iostream> under the boost/ directory (i.e. non test-case code). So
>>> in practice it does appear that using <iostream> as a shortcut is
>>> considered acceptable practice. However I wanted to highlight the
>>> point just in case people do view this as a bug that has simply snuck
>>> in under the radar to date.
>> IIRC, at one point we were supporting a platform that had <iostream>
>> but not <istream> or <ostream>, so I got in the habit of using
>> <iostream> despite its cost. That platform might not matter any more,
>> and I'd support fixing Boost's headers to avoid including
>> iostream.... just not for 1.34.0 :)
> I agree. I have a vague recollection the platform was GCC, although that
> was many years ago so I may be mistaken.
> Out of curiosity, I changed the uses of <iostream> in my local copy of
> the random library to use other std headers, and it still passes
> regression tests for GCC 3.3.4.
Same here. No more <iostream> in fusion.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk