Re: [boost] Problems with the May 9th version of function

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-13 15:01:09

On Sunday 13 May 2001 11:56 am, you wrote:
> 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
> >> that
> >> 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
> >> bother
> >> 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
> everything boost.

function.hpp is the main header for boost::function. It hasn't yet been 
formally reviewed, so it isn't part of any Boost distribution. The most 
recent version is form May 9, and is available at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/Callback/function-05-09.zip

I personally test with Boost 1.21.1, though I newer version is available on 
http://www.boost.org.

> 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.
>
> -Howard

Your input would be greatly appreciated. Portability to platforms I don't 
have access to is extremely tough to achieve and I need all the help I can 
get.

        Doug