Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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
I do. > and will be used a lot in the future Maybe not a lot, but often enough. I'm sure we have quite a few synonyms for it in various headers. Did you search for just "TYPENAME"? I find BOOST_ARG_DEPENDENT_TYPENAME BOOST_MSVC_TYPENAME BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME BOOST_UBLAS_TYPENAME BOOST_SPIRIT_TYPENAME... etc. OK, I'm tired of typing these now. It really uglifies code to have to add the workaround every place you need it. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
