Re: [boost] is_enum andis_convertibleinterdependencies....BOOST_NO_IS_ABSTRACT

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-23 11:46:48

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

>> Didn't we decide that flags for conformance should always be in the
>> form of
>>
>>     BOOST_NO_some-conforming-c++-feature
>>
>> so that unless something special is done, the assumption will be that
>> the compiler conforms?
>
> Absolutely: however BOOST_TT_HAS_CONFORMING_IS_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION was one 
> of yours I believe: chuckles, ducks, runs for cover....

<dave quietly whistles "dixie" while hoping nobody notices he's
checking in the fix>

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com