Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
Sohail Somani wrote:
There is one obvious problem I see with the -DBOOST_NAMESPACE=foo approach: there is no way to include two versions of Boost within the same translation unit. Unfortunately, I don't think there would be any acceptable way to do this. Though I'm sure you will come back with a way to do it!
There is actually a worse problem. Any solution involving a namespace alias will break code like:
namespace boost { namespace fusion { namespace extension { template<> struct begin_impl<...> { ... }; } } }
Hm, that is definitely an extension point. STLport gets around this problem because they never have to #include INCLUDE something that has "std" in it. Similarly for Xalan and Xerces. So they can just #define std my_special_std. Is there any conforming way to prevent the following from replacing the boost token? #define boost boost_1 #define INCLUDE <boost/foo/bar.hpp> #include INCLUDE Still, I wonder if this is the only problem once solved. -- Sohail Somani http://uint32t.blogspot.com