From: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve (rwgk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-22 14:31:02
--- Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'm not personally interested in porting to this compiler, but it seems that
> it should configure
> #define BOOST_NO_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_ORDERING 1
> this could actually make boost.range work 90% on this compiler. Can anybody
> see any problems
> in defining this flag for this compiler?
I could try it out if you tell me where you want to put the define, e.g. via a
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk