From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-07 04:46:40
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> wrote
> Jeff Flinn wrote:
> > Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> >
> >>Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>>Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>
> >>MPL introduces a namespace called "::mpl_" (note: root namespace) by
> >
> >
> > FYI: IIRC, there was a recent post where explicit leading "::" in
refering
> > to namespaces caused problems in atleast one compiler.
>
> Actually I thought I'd be talking to human beings rather than a compiler,
here ;-).
:-)
FWIW, I don't think we need this for typeof. All we need is to define some
templates in, for example, <unnamed>::boost_typeof, and then refer to them
as boost_typeof::blah. No leading "::" is needed.
At least for Microsoft. Does anybody know if the similar problem exists in
other compilers?
Regards,
Arkadiy