From: Björn Karlsson (Bjorn.Karlsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-01 06:05:41
> From: Terje Slettebø [mailto:tslettebo_at_[hidden]]
> If this is the case, what about the SGI STL/STLPort
> extensions to STL? Is
> the clause about undefined behaviour to guard against
> possibly name-clashes,
> perhaps (which SGI STL/STLPort may handle, but where an
> additional library
> may not guard against)?
Not only name-clashes, but also overloads, I think (a positive side-effect
is less potential for confusion). Implementors (naturally) enjoy the luxury
of living in namespace std, applications don't (§17.4.3.1). Thus,
::std-extensions from implementors imply not defined behavior, whereas for
the rest of us, they're undefined behavior. :-)
So I agree with Anthony; they'd better live in ::boost.
Bjorn Karlsson