From: Michael Marcin (mmarcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-17 21:20:47
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Eric Niebler wrote:
>> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>> Michael Marcin wrote:
>>>> Or maybe I still don't understand. Are these forward declaration
>>>> partial specializations strictly necessary?
>>> Yes. It's a means to prevent unwanted ODR violation. Fusion is
>>> modular. The support for boost::array comes when you include a
>>> header. Imagine a case where a TU does not include the header and
>>> another that does. Without the forward declaration, the second TU
>>> will pick up the default (non-specialized) implementation, which
>>> might or might not compile, but will certainly be a violation of
>> Agreed. But we certainly need workarounds for compilers that can't
>> handle an incomplete partial specialization. On head, xpressive
>> doesn't compile on cw-9.4 because of this problem, and that's a
>> regression from
> Agreed. I intend to go back to the Mac anyway, after a long trek into
> Wintel. Sorry if this may be OT but is virtualization really working
> well for developers? I'd love to get, say, VisualC++ along side CW.
> Also, is CW not a dead-end? It's a pity that they no longer have the
> Windows version.
Nokia is using a CW9.4 Windows x86 compiler to build emulator applications
for their Series 60 devices.
Not sure if it can be used to build standalone x86 applications though.
- Michael Marcin