From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-26 19:50:39
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Seems to have caused it. But Dave's comment on the change doesn't say
>> which "Broken compiler" the change was for.
> Sorry, it was one of the VC++s; 6 I think. I figured omitting the
> void would work anywhere. Well, you're probably safe by optionally
> including the void when on CW, yes?
Aw, there's no way that test could work without PTS. I have no clue
what I was thinking when I checked in those changes. Reverted, with
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk