Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-02 18:54:15

From: <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
> Having a common interface for the various functional implementations
> is an important goal... however I know of at least one issue that gets
> in the way here. One of the best parts of the LL interface is that you
> don't have to explicitly specify the types for the arg1/arg2 or
> free1/free2 objects. However, this feature absolutely requires the
> heavy use of member templates, which I found out killed trying to make
> this work on VC++. So the problem is that a functional "lite" library
> that compiles with VC++ *can not* have the same interface as LL :(
> So I see three alternatives:
> 1. live with different functional library interfaces
> 2. have a dumbed down common functional interface that is compilable by VC++
> 3. someone more clever than me figures out how to get the implicit
> typing of the arg1/free1 objects in LL to compile with VC++

Or choose to only support C++ compilers.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at