"Bo Persson" <bop2@[...].com>  writes:

| "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@[...].net>  skrev i meddelandet
| news:m3n0rlvxy0.fsf@[...]..
| > 
| >  Some days ago, someone was wondering on this list (sorry, I can't find
| >  the message off hand) whether the following construct
| > 
| >     typedef reverse_iterator<T> reverse_iterator;
| > 
| >  were valid or not and reported that one of his compiler rejected it.
| 
| Yes, but
| 
| typedef std::reverse_iterator<T>  reverse_iterator;
| 
| is accepted.

Yes, that is right as far the above doesn't happen in std:: and
namespaces that use std::.

| >  His compiler was right; somewhere, the standard says
| > 
| >  3.3/4
| >     Given a set of declarations in a single declarative region, each of
| >     which specifies the same unqualified name,
| 
| Note: "unqualified name"

Yes, with the key phrase "in a single declarative region".

-- Gaby
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost