From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-14 13:42:17
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
> The change you suggest is in fact the current approach we use to work
> around VC++. As to whether that approach is simpler is not so clear to me.
> For example, the 2nd approach requires a nested class, which could be
> regarded as a complication. Overall, I'd classify this NAD ;)
The outer template is usually not required, though.
Definitely, in std:: terms it's NAD, I agree.
As I posted elsewhere, though, you could make a backwards-compatible change
that will make this approach possible. Please see my 2nd post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/22486 before making a judgement.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk