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
If I remember correcty Dave introduced that macro anyway, so yes go ahead
and change it- can you make sure that the
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
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
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
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
I was just getting ready to propose a new config macro called
BOOST_ARG_DEPENDENT_TYPENAME based on this test:
struct id { typedef int type; };
template class T struct foo;
template class T
void f(T)
{
typedef footypename T::type y;
}
int main()
{
David Abrahams wrote:
I was just getting ready to propose a new config macro called
BOOST_ARG_DEPENDENT_TYPENAME based on this test:
struct id { typedef int type; };
template class T struct foo;
template class T
void f(T)
{
typedef footypename T::type y;
David Abrahams wrote:
I was just getting ready to propose a new config macro called
BOOST_ARG_DEPENDENT_TYPENAME based on this test:
struct id { typedef int type; };
template class T struct foo;
template class T
void f(T)
{
typedef footypename T::type y;
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
