Re: [boost] [config][gcc 3.4.2] Request for test about function template ordering

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-19 08:15:03

JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
>> Don't automatically jump to conclusions that partial ordering is
>> broken; more often than not, it is the code that is broken.
>
> How I wished that was true :) more often than not, making
> my library work for a wide range of compilers had nothing
> to do with my code compliance. This particular case is,
> to my delight, an exception.

You are right. Sorry.

It's just that I notice a disturbing tendency to define global defect macros 
to work around a particular failure in a particular library. Even if the 
compiler is indeed at fault, and sometimes it is not, the shortcoming 
usually does not affect the other 50+ libraries in Boost. Defining the 
global defect macro would be a bit harsh.

This has been true in the old Boost days as well, but lately the compilers 
are more right and the code is more wrong. :-)