> Indeed that's not very helpful. But at least - as you said - it fails > to compile so I consider it a non-issue for the operators library. > It's a > VC6 problem and the users need to life with it whether or not they use > the operators library, right? Yup. It is six years old after all. Anyway it is in the documentation, as well as a work-around.
> I don't think so and I wasn't suggesting that it would be a good > idea. I think it's reasonable to have both things tied together. I > just wanted > to mention it and see what you think. I think that it's my job as the > maintainer to try to break everything to see how robust it is (and > hopefully not to frustrate anyone). As I'm new in this area, please > correct me if I'm wrong. :) No, not at all, I think you're doing a very good job indeed, never any harm in taking the devils advocate. > I think we now have had a fair amount of discussion and as long as you > (or anyone else) don't find another problem, I'm looking forward for > your next patch-set. :) Attached. Hopefully not made a mess of it. :-) Sam PS The problem I mentioned I was having with the tests was me not thinking properly. I compiled all the tests with an old set (1.29) of boost files by mistake, and lo and behold it none of them passed - amazing hey! Sorry, I'll keep my mouth shut in future.
operators_test.cpp.patch
Description: Binary data
operators.htm.patch
Description: Binary data
operators.hpp.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
