David Abrahams wrote: > > 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.
The difference I see is, that BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT switches between two legal alternatives, while BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME only hides non-conforming code (IIUC) which is required for some compilers. > > 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"? No, I greped for BOOST_DEDUCED_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. Agreed. I didn't know about the other MACROs. I just found the one (or two?) occasions where BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME was used. Generally I think it's better to have things as local as possible, but if the above workaround is needed often, it might make sense to keep the macro and if I understand you correctly, the new macro will replace all of the above macros, right? 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
