3 Jun
2008
3 Jun
'08
1:27 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
Also, personally I am strongly against including windows-specific or POSIX-specific headers in boost headers.
Given that the header in question is already windows specific I don't understand how including a windows specific header will make it any worse.
I think that the problem is global namespace pollution. Windows headers are particularly known to define common names as macros. And posix headers are often 'dirty' too. -- gpd