Subject: Re: [boost] Patch bonanza for VS2013 Preview support
From: Nathan Ridge (zeratul976_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-24 20:41:08
> [Nathan Ridge]
>> A clang developer has recently pointed me to an interesting clause in the
>> standard ([temp.inst] p6):
>> "If the overload resolution process can determine the correct function to
>> call without instantiating a class template definition, it is
>> unspecified whether that instantiation actually takes place."
>> Perhaps this is coming into play here (and thus all of the above
>> behaviour is standard-conforming)?
> That's an excellent catch. Yep, I agree.
Of course, just because there isn't a unique standard-conforming behaviour
doesn't mean that isn't value in compiler implementers agreeing on a de
facto standard behaviour in common cases, like the one that arose in this
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk