From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-13 18:00:30
>From: "Kevlin Henney" <kevlin_at_[hidden]>
> In article <u4r672skj.fsf_at_[hidden]>, David Abrahams
> <dave_at_[hidden]> writes
> >Kevlin Henney <kevlin_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>>on deficient compilers.
> >> Agreed. However, VC7 is not such a compiler
> >Huh? VC7 not deficient?
> Perhaps that claim was too broad ;-)
> >It certainly doesn't support partial
> True. But the ordering of definitions is such that it does work on VC7
> (swap them round and it doesn't work). The error message indicated did
> not seem to indicate that this was the problem.
> >most-confused-ly y'rs,
> In which case, it is clear that I must be imagining all the successful
> compilations and test executions I have been having.
No, you didn't; I got problem-free compilation of that version on VC7, too.
Let's just say that VC7's support for partial ordering is, uhm, partial. ;)
>From an earlier posting:
> From the compiler messages I am
> seeing, it is uncertain whether Terje's trial implementation would have
> faired uniformly better.
Since MSVC 6/7, and Borland C++, doesn't handle partial ordering of function
templates well, or not at all, I also had to avoid that for those platforms,
by having workaround code for them in my proposition. Just like you've had
to avoid partial ordering in your latest version, to make it work properly
on MSVC, especially version 6.
My proposition would likely have fared better than the first update that was
committed, due to the mentioned workaround code it had. However, since then,
you've got the new version to work with tests passing on all the compilers
on the Win32 tests, so it's at least as portable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk