From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-06 09:40:47
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Agreed. I didn't know about the other MACROs. I just found the one (or
> two?) occasions where BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME was used. Generally I think
> it's better to have things as local as possible, but if the above
> workaround is needed often, it might make sense to keep the macro and if
> I understand you correctly, the new macro will replace all of the above
> macros, right?
That would be the idea.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk