Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-26 18:51:20

Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Douglas Paul Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Jim Apple wrote:
>> >
>> >> Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This should not compile.
>> >>
>> >> Compiled for me with g++ 3.3.1, Intel 8 on linux. Here are some diffs
>> >> to note this compiler error:
>> >
>> > Thanks, I'll add it to the testsuite.
>> I'm a little bit concerned about having this is the Boost.Function
>> test suite. It isn't really a Boost.Function-specific problem at all;
>> the compiler bug doesn't affect the usability of Boost.Function,
> It does affect the usability of Boost.Function, because users of
> these compilers may try it in some small test case and think that
> Boost.Function (unlike normal function pointers) can handle default
> arguments.

Sure, but it also affects Boost.Python, and probably quite a few other
libraries, in a similar way. I don't think every library which takes
specific function pointer types as arguments should test for this bug.

People could also use type traits on template-dependent arguments
without `typename' with vc6 and be misled into thinking that you don't
need typename when using the type traits.

>> and it interacts with *any* code which does function
>> pointer/reference assignment. Tests like this one, which really
>> just look for specific compiler bugs, belong in the config library
>> test suite. We should also have a corresponding config macro.
> Why put it into the config library test suite? Do you have any use for
> this as a macro?

No, but I don't know any other place where we just test for compiler

I don't feel very strongly about this, but it does seem like it's just
going to make the library look broken when it's actually fully

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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