On Friday 12 July 2013 17:13:39 Andrew Ho wrote:
Agreed, boost operators classes should be in boost::operators. I'm working on a patch to fix this issue (have already done so in my test code for operators2 and it works just fine).
Could we just have boost::operators (i.e. without 2)? The old implementation didn't have a namespace and the new one is supposed to replace it, isn't it?
There's also a macro flag in boost operators BOOST_NO_OPERATORS_IN_NAMESPACE which allows boost operators classes to be in the global namespace. I propose we get rid of this macro and force all operators classes to be in the boost::operators2 namespace.
I don't mind against that. I'm curious though for what compilers this workaround is targeted for. I'm guessing this should be something rather old.