Re: [boost] shared_ptr hierarchy question

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-19 11:19:33

In that case, is there any objection to accepting the version of
smart_ptr.hpp recently posted by Peter Dimov as the official version?

just-trying-to-get-uniform-funcitonality-ly y'rs,
dave
----- Original Message -----
From: <scleary_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:48 AM
Subject: RE: [boost] shared_ptr hierarchy question

> > If that is the only problem, then it is indeed not specific to member
> > templates at all. But please, can someone recall the /specific/
objection
> > which resulted in our not enabling member templates for
> > smart_ptr.hpp with MSVC?
>
> Here's some messages from the thread "MSVC template weirdness" (these deal
> with template issues of several kinds with MSVC -- not just member
> templates):
>   http://www.egroups.com/message/boost/2635
>   http://www.egroups.com/message/boost/2637
>   http://www.egroups.com/message/boost/2640
> However, in this case, I don't think any of them apply, except we need to
> define the template versions before non-template versions.
>
> The decision to define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES and also define
> BOOST_MSVC6_MEMBER_TEMPLATES was made at:
>   http://www.egroups.com/message/boost/2718
>
> -Steve
>
>
>