From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-06 12:25:11
> This kind of unnamed namespace can be handled correctly by both MS
> compilers, with respect to pch, but I don't believe it satisfies the
> Boost naming convention. OTOH, if no other solution is found, this
> is the only
> way we can achieve typeof compliance with pch, while still staying in
> the unnamed namespace.
I'm surprised the any kind of unnamed namespace can be handled by PCH's:
after all each TU should get it's own distict name for the unnamed
namespace.
John.