Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Polygon] "Ambiguous use of partial specialization" in CodeWarrior
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-01-12 03:26:39

Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
> It looks to me like I should just eliminate the #else clause
> and keep only your SFINAE-less compile time logic since it
> is feature complete and supported by more compilers.

You could eliminate the #else clause, but I don't think that you should. After all, it is a workaround, and it is much more difficult to read than the original version, at least for me.

> Also this eliminates the macro (and the need to document it.)

Oh, I guess that a compiler that already chokes when just including polygon.hpp will need much more code changes and workarounds than just this single traits definition. I tried this and downloaded a free special edition of a Freescale CodeWarrior compiler. It turns out that to even compile a file that only includes polygon.hpp without actually using it, the attached patch to scan_arbitrary.hpp is required. I didn't even try actually compiling one of the examples, but I guess that much more work would be required to get these compile.

> Is there a reason you kept the SFINAE based code and used a macro
> to switch between the two other than to test your compile time logic against the original?

I guess that more workarounds will be required to port the SFINAE heavy Boost.Polygon code to a compiler with BOOST_VERY_LITTLE_SFINAE defined.

> > As a side note, the latest revision of Boost.Polygon doesn't pass all
> > regression tests on MSVC-9.0 ...
> fixed

Very good, I can confirm that the regression tests on MSVC-9.0 pass again.


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