The issue is whether the decltype keyword is too broken on VC10 to define BOOST_NO_DECLTYPE. I think it /may/ be, so we should define it just to be safe, at least for 1.43.
Eric, where do we stand on this? Does the VC10 decltype problem in the beta still exist in the final release of VC10?
The bug is not in VC10 per se, but in the specification of decltype. An issue has been raised with the standardization committee and proposed wording has been suggested. Hopefully, it'll make it into C++0x Final.
What that means for Boost.Config is unclear to me. We may decide to define a defect macro for this particular buggy decltype behavior, since gcc's decltytpe works this way, too.
That sounds like a reasonable approach. Care to propose a name? What is the CWG issue number?
If all compilers decltype implementations have this issue, *and* it is currently std conforming, then maybe we shouldn't have a defect macro at all? Or at least wait until we know whether this is likely to be fixed in the std? Just my 2c, John.