Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION
From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-08 18:39:36

Next message: Gavin Lambert: "Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull"
Previous message: Julian Gonggrijp: "Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull"
Next in thread: Daniel James: "Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION"
Reply: Daniel James: "Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION"
Reply: Stephen Kelly: "Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION"

I understand there's been some discussion about dropping support for
compliers with BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION defined. Has some
final decision been made about this?

Thank you,

JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
TelefÃ³nica Digital

Next message: Gavin Lambert: "Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull"
Previous message: Julian Gonggrijp: "Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull"
Next in thread: Daniel James: "Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION"
Reply: Daniel James: "Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION"
Reply: Stephen Kelly: "Re: [boost] Support for BOOST_NO_TEMPLATE_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk