Subject: Re: [boost] ï»¿ï»¿[test]enable_if, etc. : was : ï»¿...multiprecision types ... for unit tests?
From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-13 14:37:54
> Christopher Kormanyos <e_float <at> yahoo.com> writes:
>> * OK for GCC 4.7.2
>> * Errors for VC10 (ambiguous symbols), AKA VisualStudio 2010
>> * Errors for VC11 (ambiguous symbols), AKA VisualStudio 2012
>Sorry. I've misinterpreted MSVC output. I do see the error now. And... this
>is really weird one. I did not see something like this in a long time. What
>it comes to can be illustrated in this example:
<snip code sample>
>I'm sure it can be simplified further by removing specifics of
>multiprecision library. And the offending line is ... the template
>instantiation, in unrelated namespace HAS NOTHING TO DO with enable_if at
So if I understand, we are actually dealing with a compiler
issue here regarding the proper resolution of namespaces.
Is that what you are saying?
>Any hints are welcome.
I think it would be best to qualify enable_if and disable_if
with the boost namespace in multiprecision. John, what
is you opinion?
But you are right in principle, it seems to be a compiler
issue. I apologize for wrongly involving your code in
this test case.
Gennadiy, do you really want to go the hard road and
use symbols inject enable_if, etc. in namespaces in your code.
It just seems like playing with fire since this symbol has such
a clear meaning in C++11. It's your decision, but it would
scare me enough to create my_enable_if, etc.
But again, it seems as though your code is right and
MSVC is wrong. Just a tough waiting game on a compiler
issue like that.
Have we cleared this one up now? Should I investigate
anything further? John, should we decorate multiprecision?
No Hurry here, it's something for 1.55.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk