From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-21 10:03:39
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I don't have 9 since my beta license expired and a new one hasn't
>> arrived from MW yet. I could just turn those overloads off for all
>> __MWERKS__ if a conforming compiler shouldn't need them. Is that
>> what you had in mind?
> No, no. The overloads are required to support
> bind<int&>( &X::i, _1 )(x) = 5;
> but this is not a critical feature (which is why there are no tests for it),
Aside from my objection, maybe you should accept my other patch in
that case, since it ought to function equivalently to the overloads
accepted by a conforming compiler. I wouldn't want to vouch for it
without some tests, though. Could you please write me some?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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