From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-28 08:52:52
Robert Ramey wrote:
> I did spend a significant amount of time trying dealing with this. The
> first effort resulted in the table of rules which can be found in the
> documentation of 1.32. I found this very unsatisfactory. If I remember
> correctly it was one set of requirements for compilers supporting partial
> template specialization and another set for compilers that didn't. Given
> the two alternatives, I found the current one much better.
> I understand that I have to live with two-phase lookup. But there's no
> requirement that I have to think its a good idea. I first noticed the
> problem when the meaning of my code silently changed depending upon header
> order. Of course this was compiler dependent. So it was huge hassle to
> find. Sorry, I just can't see how this can be a good idea.
Did you try to apply my patch? Did it break any tests? On what compilers?
You statements sound a bit vague; probably if you clearly explain what's
the problem, somebody will be able to give a solution.
The current library simply does not work with my code. Do you suggest that I
patch Boost tree locally? Or there's some other way?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk