Daryle Walker wrote:

>  
>  This "solution" looks extremely invasive, given all the different places
>  that could need changing.  Maybe it's not worth it, considering the hit that
>  anyone not using the Windows headers (automatically including anyone not
>  using Windows nor an IBM-styled PC) takes.  What was wrong with limiting the
>  workaround to "win32.hpp"?
>  

You're a little late -- the fix is done and checked in. No end users 
take a "hit" as a result of this change. There were several things wrong 
with limiting the workaround to win32.hpp and the have been discussed 
extensively on this list. Please see the archive.

Thanks.

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost