Re: [boost] Misc Borland problems

From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-27 06:56:49

> I think this is a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.
> The workaround doubles the amount of effort, for what purpose?
> Boost.Function still supports the numbered versions for compilers broken
> in this respect, e.g.:
> 
>   function2<int, int /*x*/, double /*y*/> foo;

OK good.

> EDG-based compilers are fine (tested on Comeau, SGI, Compaq, and Intel),
> as are all versions of GCC from 2.95 on (check the Function tutorial in
> CVS for a list of compilers that have been tested).

OK that's better than I expected.
 
> Yeah, it's legal. 8.3.5/8 says:
>    "An identifier can optionally be provided as a parameter name; if
> present in a function definition (8.4), it names a parameter (sometimes
> called formal argument )...."

Aha, OK thanks,

John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm