From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-16 10:55:32
"Bronek Kozicki" <brok_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> > Thanks for your effort coming up with this workaround. Unfortunately,
> > it works okay (when modified as described below) in isolation, when it is
> > generated by macros as a deeply nested template, something goes wrong and it
> > doesn't handle overloading.
> Coud you pls. send me code to reproduce problem? I will try to find a fix.
Thanks for the offer. I will try to do this, but it a non-trivial task, some of
the code is output of the preprocessor, and some hand written. There are a lot
of mangled names and a lot of irrelevant stuff.
> > 1. I believe it is non-conforming, since explicitly specifying the template
> > argument Type should suppress template argument deduction and therefore
> > But this is irrelevant for a broken-compiler workaround.
> I'm pretty sure that you are wrong. There are *two* template functions
Yes, I'm now convinced I was wrong. Template arguments must still be compatible
even if they are explicitly specified, and 14.8.2/2 governs this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk