[boost] Re: Patch for function/function_base.hpp

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-13 05:20:26

Daniel Frey wrote:

> Markus Schöpflin wrote:

When posting the patch, I didn't even realize that the code was legal 
and that this is a problem with VACPP6. And the aCC workaround fixes 
the problem for VA, too.

>>This was the original source:
>>
>>template<bool, typename> struct enable_if;
>>-----------------------^
>>
>>Visual Age doesn't like this, it needs a name here.
> 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ah, that's the reason. But given my recent discomfort about
> unmaintainable code, look at it again:
> 
>   #  if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <= 33900)
>       template<bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if;
>   #  else
>       template<bool, typename T> struct enable_if;
>   #  endif
> 
> Does this really makes sense? Shouldn't we just keep one version with
> names for template parameters? AFAICS this should work for all compilers
> and it could be a general boost coding guideline to always provide names
> for template parameters. Comments?

Agreed, if it works for all compilers, let's just keep the version 
with the names. (And add a comment that it should stay like it is!)

Markus