STDCXX-425

[Eric Lemings <Er...@roguewave.com>]

 
I'm not sure what the issue is here exactly or if its really even an
issue.  What's the goal here?  To get rid of the include directive?
Incorporate the code into other headers?

>From Martin's comments, the header (or more specifically the code
contained in the header) is needed in certain configurations in certain
environments.  The header should be conditionally compiled for these
particular configurations and environments (and it is for the most
part).  It does appear however that some conditional guards are missing,
e.g.

    // undefine macros #defined by some evil C libraries (e.g., MSVC)
    #undef max
    #undef min

Brad.

Re: STDCXX-425

[Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>]

Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
> I'm not sure what the issue is here exactly or if its really even an
> issue.  What's the goal here?  To get rid of the include directive?
> Incorporate the code into other headers?

IIRC, to remove the #include directive. The code in the examples
should be pure, portable C++ that compiles as is with any conforming
compiler.

> 
> From Martin's comments, the header (or more specifically the code
> contained in the header) is needed in certain configurations in certain
> environments.  The header should be conditionally compiled for these
> particular configurations and environments (and it is for the most
> part).  It does appear however that some conditional guards are missing,
> e.g.
> 
>     // undefine macros #defined by some evil C libraries (e.g., MSVC)
>     #undef max
>     #undef min

Yeah, those can be tricky (but they reflect nono-conformance). We
should be able to deal with them in our headers though.

Martin

> 
> Brad.