From: Nicola Musatti (Nicola.Musatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-25 18:15:33
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Nicola Musatti wrote:
>>Robert Ramey wrote:
>>>Nicola Musatti wrote:
>>>I think your analysis of the
>>>problem is correct - but I think the fix is in the wrong place.
>>>Basically, I don't want to take any other than primitive types.
>>> I'll look into it. Give me a couple of days
Just a quick update: by special-casing class_id_type and
class_id_reference_type like I did for version_type I managed to get
almost on a par with BCB6. The remaining four regressions appear to be
due to something completely different.
> BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF has worked well on all platforms except
> borland. Ideally I would like to see if a borland fix could be integrated
> into BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF itself. This however would
> require a separate test for BOOST_STRONG_TYPEDEF which
> I don't have.
I see your point. I wonder if a template based approach would be much
more complicated. I say this because I can't see what may be causing the
compiler to generate a call to the bool overload of operator>> and I
fear that finding the magic spell by trial and error might result in a
considerable waste of time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk