Re: [boost] Re: [type_traits] is_pointer<noncopyable>failsonCodeWarrior 9.4

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 10:56:17

John Maddock wrote:
>>> I must be missing something. The trivial implementation of
>>> is_pointer: template<class T> struct is_pointer: mpl::false_ {};
>>> template<class T> struct is_pointer<T*>: mpl::true_ {};
>>>
>>> should work on everything except MSVC 6/7, right? So why isn't it
>>> being used?
>>
>> Yeah, duh.  Why not?
>
> Lots of reasons, but as usual it's complex:
>
> 1) There are some compilers that bind member [function] pointers to
> foo<T*> partial specialisations, if I remember correctly, gcc was
> one, but don't quote me on that, and I don't know which behaviours
> are right and which wrong either.  The fix was to check that a pointer was
> not a member pointer before actually declaring it a pointer.

I suspected something along those lines. Yes, some versions of g++ do that; 
some even allow you to delete a member pointer. No, it's not right. But why 
didn't you guard this in a BOOST_WORKAROUND specific to the particular g++ 
versions in question? (This is fixed in g++ 3.4 and above, I believe.)