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

From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-13 07:20:23

> 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?

Nah, the vendors will never fix problems that we hide.  In some regular
code I might just switch it, but since some vendors _are_ using Boost to
test their compiler conformance, we should leave the HP workaround in (and
use the same or a new workaround for VisualAge also).  That way, when they
compile with BOOST_NO_CONFIG they will see the problem.

Dave