Re: [boost] BOSOT_ENUM proposal rev 4

From: Frank Laub (frank.laub_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-22 05:40:35

On 12/22/05, Richard Jennings <richard.jennings_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
The return type is void in rev4.3 isn't it?  I have not changed the return
> type, only the parameter type?  (At least that was my intent)

Oh, I have a rev4.5 now. rev4.4 first started to use the
Boost.Operatorlibrary so that I didn't have to write so much redundant
operator code.
That's when the return type got changed from a void to a T&. In rev4.5, I've
also modified the rhs so that it takes a const bitfield_base<T>& as you
suggest.

-Frank