Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME was introduced for the sake of MSVC only (which > seems very likely to be the case)
It was. > , then it was given a wrong name, since > there are lots of other situations, besides the "deduced typename" context, > when the compiler refuses to accept 'typename', incorrectly - in particular, > the one demonstrated by the above test case. Classifying those situations > and introducing a separate macro for each and every of them just isn't worth > the troubles, in particular because MSVC is the only compiler with such > peculiarity with respect to 'typename' in different contexts; IMO what is > needed in place of such artificial classification is a single macro that > explicitly documents that what is being worked around here is a weird > behavior of one particular compiler, e.g. BOOST_MSVC_TYPENAME or something > like it. Well, I think you're right, but the question remains: what should we do about it? Should we just replace BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
