Boost logo

Boost :

From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-04 11:38:25

On 3/4/06, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hello Felipe,


> Of course, count on this being committed asap. I've got
> a couple of questions, though:


> 1. Regardless of whether your compiler takes the expanded
> macro as containing a '>>' instead of two '>'s, it is my
> understanding that a *conformant* preprocessor shouldn't
> do this. Is this correct? (I'll add the blank, anyway.)

To be honest, I'm not a preprocessor expert, so I really dont know...

> 2. Do you say this particular use of const_mem_fun
> (macro problems aside) works for you? Which compiler
> and version of Boost (1.33.1,CVS) are you using?
> I'm a little surprised because accessing tuple::get
> with const_mem_fun is a very tricky issue, as discussed
> for instance in the following thread:

It worked allright here. I'm using the cvs version. My compiler is VC7.1

> Joaquín M López Muñoz
> Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

best regards,

Felipe Magno de Almeida

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at