Re: [boost] Re: is_class

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-17 03:28:37

Dave Gomboc wrote:
> 
> No, I would prefer
> 
> #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <=33900) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__VisualAge,
> <=12345)
>     template <bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if;
> #else
>     template <bool, typename> struct enable_if;
> #endif
> 
> I already explained the reason: C++ compiler vendors use Boost with
> BOOST_NO_CONFIG for conformance testing.  I'd rather see broken compilers
> get fixed than developers forever spending time finding workarounds.

OK, agreed. Given that we use another approach for static constants,
what do you think about:

template< BOOST_UNUSED_TEMPLATE_PARAMETER( bool, cond ),
          BOOST_UNUSED_TEMPLATE_PARAMETER( typename, T ) >
struct enable_if;

Or should we instead replace BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT by a #ifdef, too? Or
is BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT different, probably because there is no "right"
code and a workaround, but there are two equally good ways to declare
static constants?

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de