From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-06 06:39:19
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> 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.
> > 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.
I greped for it and it seems it is not used very often. How about using
BOOST_WORKAROUND to keep the code local and thus not hide the actual
workaround in a MACRO and spread to knowledge? Especially given it's
only a workaround for a single compiler. Or do you think it is
comparable to BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT and will be used a lot in the future
and doesn't fall into the category of problems BOOST_WORKAROUND is
supposed to solve?
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk