Boost logo

Boost :

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 before making a judgement.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at