Re: [boost] Fix for some Interval library tests

[Beman Dawes]

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?

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost