From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-01 11:45:56
Niels Dekker - mail address until 2008-12-31 wrote:
> Hmmm... not such a good idea of mine! Doing so would lead to ambiguity
> when the type T would /not/ have its own swap overload, while it would
> have the std namespace as an associated namespace. For example, when T
> would be a pointer-to-std::string or an std::time_base::dateorder enum.
> I wish this boost_swap_impl::swap could have been a little less
> "specialized"! (But still, it would need to be more specialized than
> boost::swap itself!)
There's a config macro |BOOST_FUNCTION_SCOPE_USING_DECLARATION_BREAKS_ADL
|Does it help to
a) using namespace std;
b) put the using in the namespace rather than in the function
> Anyway, I think we should add unit tests for std types!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk