Re: [boost] [config] vc10 and BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] vc10 and BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-20 13:44:12

John Maddock wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> What that means for Boost.Config is unclear to me. We may decide
>>> to define a defect macro for this particular buggy decltype
>>> behavior, since gcc's decltytpe works this way, too.
>> 
>> That sounds like a reasonable approach. Care to propose a name?
>> What is the CWG issue number?
> 
> If all compilers decltype implementations have this issue, *and* it
> is currently std conforming, then maybe we shouldn't have a defect
> macro at all?  Or at least wait until we know whether this is likely
> to be fixed in the std?
> 
> Just my 2c, John.

Oh. Yeah, that sounds better. And it seems to me that VC10's decltype
probably works well enough to leave BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE undefined, but I'd
see some more examples of code in the wild that would be broken by the
bug Anthony is referring to.

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com