From: Dean Sturtevant (deansturtevant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-21 17:15:14
--- In boost_at_[hidden], Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
> Could we have a boost/std-bugfix with the following policy:
>
> "The boost/std-bugfix directory contains header files with the
> same name as the ISO C++ standard header files, with a .hpp suffix
> appended, e.g. boost/std-bugfix/iterator.hpp. These files intend
> to provide bug fixes to the vendor-provided standard library
> implementations while these implementations are in the process of
> becoming ISO conformant. If some header file in boost/std-
bugfix/XXX.hpp
> exists, you should use it unconditionally when writing boost code
> instead of the standard <XXX>, so that portability is enhanced.
> All names in these headers should be in namespace boost or
> boost::detail."
>
I don't quite see how portability is enhanced by not including <XXX>
exactly when boost/std-bugfix/XXX.hpp exists. It seems that the only
reason that the XXX.hpp exists is if the compiler-provided header is
non-conforming, in which case everybody should use it! (Not just
boost code). Also, perhaps std-bugfix files are provided after the
submission. I don't think there's any easy solution to the problem,
or even a good one (apart from providing a conforming implementation!)
Here's an alternative suggestion:
Instead of the XXX.hpp files in boost/std-bugfix, have XXX files.
Clients should make sure boost/std-bugfix is searched before the
include path for the standard library. There would be a special file
in boost/std-bugfix that's included in every necessary boost header
just to make sure the client has the include paths set up right.