From: Doug Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-03 09:48:36
On Thursday 03 May 2001 10:33, you wrote:
> > > CodeWarrior must not do function template partial ordering.
> > > #define BOOST_NO_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ORDERING
> > > for your compiler and try again.
> > >
> > > Doug
> From: "Chris Little" <cslittle_at_[hidden]>
> > That fixed it. This define will have to be added to config.hpp.
> Well, that would be too penalizing. Intel, gcc and Metrowerks all do
> partial ordering well enough for most situations; the problem is that Doug
> uses a rather difficult construct that they can't handle properly.
Should I rename BOOST_NO_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ORDERING to something that doesn't
indicate no support, but instead indicates that the necessary level of
compliance for boost::function isn't met? If config.hpp ever gets
BOOST_NO_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ORDERING, I'd hate for function.hpp to stomp on
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk