This issue is with gcc, but a much earlier version - 2.95. I had to compile my code recently with gcc 2.95 where I ran into lack of ostream issues. So this change should be done only if gcc 2.95 is not to be supported moving forward. -Rajat ----- Original Message ---- From: Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> To: boost@lists.boost.org Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 7:12:23 PM Subject: Re: [boost] mistaken uses of <iostream> Douglas Gregor wrote:

On Nov 18, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:

...

I did a brief survey of boost 1.33.1 and found many "relaxed" uses of <iostream> under the boost/ directory (i.e. non test-case code). So in practice it does appear that using <iostream> as a shortcut is considered acceptable practice. However I wanted to highlight the point just in case people do view this as a bug that has simply snuck in under the radar to date.

IIRC, at one point we were supporting a platform that had <iostream> but not <istream> or <ostream>, so I got in the habit of using <iostream> despite its cost. That platform might not matter any more, and I'd support fixing Boost's headers to avoid including iostream.... just not for 1.34.0 :)

I agree. I have a vague recollection the platform was GCC, although that was many years ago so I may be mistaken. Out of curiosity, I changed the uses of <iostream> in my local copy of the random library to use other std headers, and it still passes regression tests for GCC 3.3.4. --Beman _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost