Re: Problems with the new concepts checking code (boost)

[Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 06:04:20PM -0700, Nathan Myers wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 01:37:22PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > And combined with the use of _ as a
> > gettext macro, would look more like a series of smiley faces than actual
> > code:  x = _(_::_);
[...]
> user code.  It is common to say something like
> 
>   #define _ gettext

Didn't I just...?  Nevvamind.  :-)

Anyhow, yes, Gaby pointed out to me yesterday that even the namespace-
protected names must be uglified, which should have occurred to me before.
So there's about to be another mongo-sized patch tweaking names and
containing namespaces.  ("boost" will go, like we already discussed)

If anybody spots more instances of checks which have always had incorrect
semantics and must be fixed, like the EqualityComparableConcept ->
EqualOpConcept change in equal(), I'd appreciate any notes to that effect.
That will be the third sweep-and-patch through the Checker code.


Due to "real life" schedules I might not get to this for a couple of days;
also the list of PRs is getting too long again and I need to spend some
time on those.  (A nice-looking doxygen continues to elude me... good
thing I never tried web design for a living.)

Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.