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