"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
I suspected something along those lines. Yes, some versions of g++ do that; some even allow you to delete a member pointer. No, it's not right. But why didn't you guard this in a BOOST_WORKAROUND specific to the particular g++ versions in question? (This is fixed in g++ 3.4 and above, I believe.)
Because I don't know if the issue is restricted to gcc, or to which versions, we can try and find out by experiment, but be prepared for a whole of bunch of regressions if it goes wrong... like I said I think this should wait until after 1.33 is out.
Peter was asking why you didn't do it that way to begin with, not why you don't do it now. If you leave too much workaround code in for compilers that don't need it, well, eventually you forget which do and which don't, and then you can't back out. See? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com