Subject: Re: [boost] [uitility/result_of] CodeGear support of result_of
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-17 20:34:02
On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:05 PM, siliconman wrote:
> In article <E3FFB208-D69C-407B-B536-DC66617981A3_at_[hidden]>,
> Daniel Walker <daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> When did codegear begin decltype support? The current codegear config
>> header configures Boost to assume decltype for all versions, which
>> seems suspect.
> 0x610 which is the first version that has __CODEGEARC__ defined.
> anything earlier would be the old __BORLANDC_ defines.
Ah, I can't keep track of what's what anymore, all this rebranding and
what not. ;)
>> If codegear supports decltype well enough to configure Boost to use
>> it, but not well enough to enable a C++0x-style result_of
>> implementation, we could revert to the old result_of for the specific
>> codegear version until someone finds a workaround or codegear's C++0x
>> support matures. I don't have access to codegear myself.
> I'm willing to try out any patches.
OK. Patch attached. Actually, the decltype-based result_of
implementation comes from a patch I submit and Doug applied last year.
I went ahead and put my name on it even though this is mostly Doug's
idea and all I did was code it up, write the test cases, update the
documentation, and I suppose now, I'm attempting to support it as best
I can. :)
The patch adds a new macro. As always, compilers that cannot support
result_of at all get BOOST_NO_RESULT_OF defined. But now, compilers
that cannot support this implementation of the ISO draft specification
of result_of get BOOST_NO_ISO_RESULT_OF defined. CodeGear tested at
0x610 is in the second camp but not the first. See the update
documentation in utility.htm.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk