Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: > > 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.
[...] > > 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. I greped for it and it seems it is not used very often. How about using BOOST_WORKAROUND to keep the code local and thus not hide the actual workaround in a MACRO and spread to knowledge? Especially given it's only a workaround for a single compiler. Or do you think it is comparable to BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT and will be used a lot in the future and doesn't fall into the category of problems BOOST_WORKAROUND is supposed to solve? 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
