> Ah, that's the reason. But given my recent discomfort about > unmaintainable code, look at it again: > > # if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <= 33900) > template<bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if; > # else > template<bool, typename T> struct enable_if; > # endif > > Does this really makes sense? Shouldn't we just keep one version with > names for template parameters? AFAICS this should work for all compilers > and it could be a general boost coding guideline to always provide names > for template parameters. Comments?
Nah, the vendors will never fix problems that we hide. In some regular code I might just switch it, but since some vendors _are_ using Boost to test their compiler conformance, we should leave the HP workaround in (and use the same or a new workaround for VisualAge also). That way, when they compile with BOOST_NO_CONFIG they will see the problem. Dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
