David Abrahams wrote:
They all compile and run the following:
namespace std { template<class T> const T& min(const T& a, const T& b) { return a<b?a:b; } } int main() { int x = 0; int y = 1; return (std::min)(x,y); }
But where will the definition of min come from on broken stdlib implementations?
Changing a call from min(a,b) to (min)(a,b) would break on stdlib implementations that *only* have the min/max macros and not the min/max algorithms, is that what you're saying? Do such implementations exist? We'll have to provide the min/max algorithms for such platforms, I suppose. Which platforms are affected?
Also, I'm not a CVS guru. If all hell breaks loose as a result of this change, is there someone willing to help me back it out?
Just "cvs tag" to mark the state before you start making changes and it'll be comparitively easy.
Guess I should have done that before the 800 edits, huh? Hmm ...
4) This is the sort of thing developers will forget to do even if it's in a style guide. A simple way of ensuring this stays fixed would be to run the regressions with min() and max() #defined to garbage, so that violations are detected and corrected early. Is this possible?
Yes, it's possible, but that'll only detect the usage:
min(x,y)
and not
std::min(x,y)
both of which are going to be banned, right?
Why would it not detect the second? If I #define min(a,b) to garbage, then the above becomes: std::garbage; Mission accomplished. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com