From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-06 06:02:21
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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?
That's what I would do. John?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk