From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-13 10:56:04
On Sunday, May 13, 2001, at 11:11 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Saturday 12 May 2001 08:48 pm, you wrote:
>> I've tried out the latest (May 9th) version of the archive for
>> function.hpp. Here's what I did when I tried to compile it.
>> 1. I had to comment out the "template" qualifications when a template
>> came from within a class was being referenced. I use Metrowerks
>> CodeWarrior Pro 5.3, which is a generation behind the latest (6.1). I
>> don't know if CWP6.1 has the same problem. If it doesn't, should we
>> coming up with a workaround?
> None of the other CodeWarrior folks have mentioned such a problem, so it
> seems specific to 5.3. I'm not sure if we should support older versions
> of a
> compiler, given the large number of hacks and #ifdef's already required.
I wouldn't assume that no comment means everything is ok. Despite the
fact that I think boost is very valuable, and I still monitor the
discussions and even participate sometimes, I've long since given up
trying to maintain a current snapshot of all the boost libs. I just
spent 15 minutes looking for a function.hpp with a date of May 9. I'm
sure someone more talented could have found it in that time, but I
couldn't. Nor can I afford the time to become more familiar with
Daryle if you would like to stuff up a complete test (I have zero
current boost on my system) and mail it to me, I'll try it out on the
latest CW compiler and report back here.
Of course if someone else pipes up with a report from CW Pro 6, before
then, that works for me too.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk