Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-05 09:26:02

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> If BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME was introduced for the sake of MSVC only (which
> seems very likely to be the case)

It was.

> , then it was given a wrong name, since
> there are lots of other situations, besides the "deduced typename" context,
> when the compiler refuses to accept 'typename', incorrectly - in particular,
> the one demonstrated by the above test case. Classifying those situations
> and introducing a separate macro for each and every of them just isn't worth
> the troubles, in particular because MSVC is the only compiler with such
> peculiarity with respect to 'typename' in different contexts; IMO what is
> needed in place of such artificial classification is a single macro that
> explicitly documents that what is being worked around here is a weird
> behavior of one particular compiler, e.g. BOOST_MSVC_TYPENAME or something
> like it.

Well, I think you're right, but the question remains: what should we
do about it? Should we just replace BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at