Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
"Tobias Schwinger" <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> 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.
Hmmm... That's about what I was talking about. Figuring that "boost_typeof" (other than "_mpl") is a name that's pretty unlikely to collide with user code, you probably won't need a configuration macro for its name.
No leading "::" is needed.
And (so joking doesn't obscure the message of my previous post) there is no "::" in the code! I used "::" simply to denote the namespace lives in the root namespace :-)... Regards, Tobias