Boost logo

Boost :

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"
> ATM.
>> 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

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