From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-22 11:00:30
David Abrahams wrote:
> "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),
> I object. We should at least be trying to test everything.
I agree in principle... but I'd say that we ought to test everything
_supported_, and this isn't an "officially supported" feature yet, it's more
a bonus/QoI thing, at least for now.
> 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.
Too much of a change just to support one particular "bonus" feature on one
particular broken compiler where nobody will likely attempt to use the
feature. :-) Let's just #ifdef it out for cw8 and be done with it. At least
for now. 'Cause I don't have the time to elevate bind< R& > to "supported"
> I wouldn't want to vouch for it without some tests, though. Could you
> please write me some?
Sometime next week, maybe. But feel free to apply your patch anyway, as it
only affects CW8, and it can't be worse than the overloads just being
disabled, as is currently the case. :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk