Boost logo

Boost :

From: Mat Marcus (mat-boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-15 18:53:26

--On Saturday, November 15, 2003 1:33 PM -1000 David Abrahams
<dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Mat Marcus <mat-boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> The current proposals address this, but as I mentioned earlier
>> there was some pushback from the compiler vendors leading to at
>> least one workaround proposal that in my mind resembles named
>> conformance.
> Really??! I thought the big problem they had was with structural
> conformance (?)

Um yes. That's what I was trying to say. I'll try again. They had a
problem with structural conformance and Dietmar's workaround reminds
me of named conformance. Does that agree with your recollection?

 - Mat

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