From: Ulrich Eckhardt (uli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 14:28:26
On Thursday 10 March 2005 17:27, John Maddock wrote:
> I think those changes all look OK, if you have cvs access, I don't see why
> you shouldn't commit them
I don't have write access to CVS. Furthermore, there's a chance that I missed
a whole set of those checks due to the way I've been searching for them. I
know I fixed some things at work in our local mirror, last Friday before
going on vacation this week - I'll check back on Monday.
>> The change in boost/detail/lwm_win32.hpp is something where I don't claim
>> I really understand what it does. Removing it breaks compilation, I don't
>> know how to test if it really works.
> Talk to Peter Dimov: post a message with a subject line he'll notice (one
> that mentions the file by name).
>> The changes in boost/function/function_template.hpp are something that
>> shouldn't break anything, except if the brackets where in fact an
>> undocumented workaround for some other bug....
> They are: I believe these are a Borland specific workaround, a better
> approach, and one which should work for both compilers is to use:
> typedef typename ct_if< ::boost::is_void<R>::value,
> For these cases (note the leading :: and the space after the <, both are
Thanks for the info, I will investigate this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk