Re: [boost] BOSOT_ENUM proposal rev 4

From: Frank Laub (frank.laub_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-22 04:35:11

>
> (i) The form for boost::function is the preferred syntax rather than the
> portable, could it be changed to portable?  test_optional_method becomes:
> template <typename T, typename A>
> void test_optional_method(
>         A arg,
>         typename T::optional expected,
>         const char* method_name,
>         boost::function1<typename T::optional, A> method
> )

Fixed.

(ii) My compiler does not like the use of 'typename' in the body of
> test_enum and test_bitfield, eg in test_enum
> test_parse(first.str(), typename T::optional(first));
> becomes:
> test_parse(first.str(), T::optional(first));
> I can't say which is the correct syntax or if the version without typename
> works for other compilers.

Fixed with BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME.

I don't have a borland compiler handy, so I'm glad there's someone out there
willing to try this out.
Thanks!

-Frank