"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> wrote in message news:cii44q$ub5$1@sea.gmane.org...
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
[...] Apparently gcc is right. See http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg06980.php.
The suggested workaround (maybe that's the wrong term, if it's not a bug) is:
template<class T> struct always_false { enum { value = 0 }; };
template <typename T> struct foo { void bar(void) { BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(always_false<T>::value); } };
Ok, thanks. Should the always_false<> template get added somewhere permanent, or should we have a special case like BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_FALSE?
I think the latter. Something like: namespace boost { namespace detail { template<class Dummy> struct always_false { enum { value = 0 }; }; } } // namespace #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_FALSE(x) \ BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(::boost::detail::always_false< x >::value); Of course we could also use: #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_FALSE(x) \ BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT((mpl::apply<mpl::always<mpl::false_>, x>::value)); but that seems like overkill. Jonathan