> At 10:07 PM 2/7/2003, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >> I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or similar) > > > >How about BOOST_LIBRARY_IMPL_VULNERABLE_TO_ADL? It's not that the > >compiler's ADL implementation is broken, it's that the library > >implementation isn't protected against ADL lookups where it needs to be. > > The rule-of-thumb is to begin these deficiency macros with BOOST_NO_ to > make it clear a conforming implementation does not need the macro. > > So BOOST_NO_STD_LIB_ADL_PROTECTION might be a better name. > > John Maddock is really the gatekeeper for this sort of macro, and he is > also familiar with the Borland compiler. John, what do you think?
Sorry to be dense, but I don't understand the issue (I admit I haven't been following this thread) do you have simple a test case? Thanks, John. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
