Re: [boost] [config] explicit call of operator templates / msvc bug workaround

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] explicit call of operator templates / msvc bug workaround
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-30 04:35:35

> if the Boost.Config maintainer wants BOOST_NESTED_OPERATOR_TEMPLATE to  be 
> part of Boost.Config, let me know.
> I can provide a patch for config code, documentation and pass/fail  tests, 
> but I'm not very familiar with the boost test/build system, so  you'd have 
> to add it there.

This is such a corner case, it seems to be exactly what BOOST_WORKAROUND was 
made for?

I'm also confused as to why you would want to do this - overloading the 
function call operator is supposed to make things easier read/type, but this 
use just seems to make them harder?  Basically you're forcing folks to use 
an interface and syntax that most people would never have used before 
(assuming this is part of a public interface).

Just my 2c worth... John.