[LLVMdev] patch for portability

[OvermindDL1]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Ahmed Charles <ahmedcharles at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, always end up not replying to the list:
>
> The main issue with dealing with next this way is that people adding new
> uses of next will probably not be using c++0x and therefore won't know it's
> ambiguous and that it needs to be qualified.

What does llvm::next do that std::next (or boost::next) do not do?  If
they do the same thing, why not just conditional create llvm::next, if
std::next is available then just include it into the llvm namespace so
it can be used as they currently are.  If they are not compatible, why
not fix the iterators to follow the std standards?