Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 13:42:03

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> 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.)
> Because I don't know if the issue is restricted to gcc, or to which
> versions, we can try and find out by experiment, but be prepared for a whole
> of bunch of regressions if it goes wrong... like I said I think this should
> wait until after 1.33 is out.

Peter was asking why you didn't do it that way to begin with, not why
you don't do it now. If you leave too much workaround code in for
compilers that don't need it, well, eventually you forget which do and
which don't, and then you can't back out. See?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at