> 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 aga
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
Guillaume Melquiond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 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 li
On Fri, 7 Feb 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 looku
> 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.
Dave
_
Again, a nasty case of patching the tests rather than the library :¬ (
It appears borland ADL is not up to the task of handling the interval
library test cases. Looking at the fail lists, I suspect it is not the
only compiler to suffer.
I suggest adding another boost defect: BOOST_BROKEN_ADL (or
