Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
> No, I would prefer
>
> #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <=33900) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__VisualAge,
> <=12345)
> template <bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if;
> #else
> template <bool, typename> struct enable_if;
> #endif
>
> I already explained the reason: C++ compiler vendors use Boost with
> BOOST_NO_CONFIG for conformance testing. I'd rather see broken compilers
> get fixed than developers forever spending time finding workarounds.
OK, agreed. Given that we use another approach for static constants,
what do you think about:
template< BOOST_UNUSED_TEMPLATE_PARAMETER( bool, cond ),
BOOST_UNUSED_TEMPLATE_PARAMETER( typename, T ) >
struct enable_if;
Or should we instead replace BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT by a #ifdef, too? Or
is BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT different, probably because there is no "right"
code and a workaround, but there are two equally good ways to declare
static constants?
Regards, Daniel
--
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
