From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-22 12:24:59
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 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
Aside from other issues, it sounds like you're telling me to do
two different things here (just ifdef it out vs. apply your patch
anyway). Please clarify.
-- 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