Boost Testing :
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-24 05:40:24
> Before I submit this point to QNX please comment on the text below
> taken from the QNX documentation for the Dinkumware C++ library.
OK it depends on how pedantic you want to be: I don't believe this is an
important issue, but if you're being really *very* pedantic there should be
*nothing* declared in namespace std that isn't specified in the standard.
If this rule isn't followed you nasty backwards-compatibity problems if the
non-standard name later become standardised but with different semantics to
the existing vendor-specific one. We have past experience of this with
non-standard hash_set/hash_map implementations in namespace std. Having
said all that, there is no other meaning that log1p/expm1 can reasonably
take than their C99 defined ones, so I *really* can't imagine that this
particular case is actually a real problem.
Basically if I were you I wouldn't bother reporting this one, it's not worth
Does this help?