From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 09:47:39
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 09:32 AM 7/25/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
> >Why don't you just fix the #ifdef checks? Seems easier and more
> >to me...
> You mean why don't we get the authors to fix the #ifdef checks:-?
The authors are swamped right now, or so I hear <wink>, the fixes are
trivial, and when you're already set up to run the tests and see the
results it's a quick job.
> >In general it's due to checks in the test .cpp files which look for
> >BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIATION which should instead be looking
> >at something that tells them whether iterator traits work for pointers.
> Does that mean a new macro, or is BOOST_NO_STD_ITERATOR_TRAITS good
> It sounds like you are saying the condition is really a new one -
One of BOOST_NO_STD_ITERATOR_TRAITS or BOOST_MSVC_ITERATOR_TRAITS should do
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk