From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-13 17:57:47
"Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk_at_[hidden]> writes:
> --- Pavel Vozenilek <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> "Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve" <rwgk_at_[hidden]> wrote
>> > g++ (GCC) 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7)
>> is_abstract should work only with latest GCC 3.4 fetched from CVS.
>> The DR337 compliance was added by Giovanni Bajo few days ago.
> It is very important to us that Boost.Python continues to work with existing
> gcc's. Would it be possible to find a solution to this problem? E.g. could
> is_abstract be ifdef'ed out on compilers where it doesn't work?
There's no reason is_abstract should fail to compile on any compiler
as long as you don't try to use it. Well, it used to ICE gcc2, but I
worked around that problem. There's no reason Boost.Python should be
#including is_abstract.hpp either. What's the problem?
-- 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