From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-06 08:44:26
On 07/06/2007 07:31 AM, Larry Evans wrote:
> which looks like a typo to me since there's (...) within the superclass
> spec. Maybe there should be a call(...) instead?
Sorry. It compiles fine in
and, as construct.html says, it's a function type:
The second template parameter might look a little strange. It is
actually a function type,
which is consistent with the (...).
Sorry for noise.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk