David Abrahams wrote: > 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?
That's what I would do. John? Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
