I haven't tried any of this code, but I just happened to notice this while glancing... On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 02:29:53AM -0800, E. Gladyshev wrote: ...
struct my_type { ... var d_;
template< typename U > void visit( test1& t, U& u ) //test1 doesn't have set() { }
template< typename T, typename U > void visit( T& t, U& u ) { t.set(u); }
const var& data() const { return d_; } };
main() { my_type t1, t2;
binary_variant_visitor<my_type> v(t1); ::boost::apply_visitor(v, t1.data(), t2.data() ); }
If I change the last line to ::boost::apply_visitor(v, t1.d_, t2.d_ );
it works fine on both compilers.
data() returns a "const &", whereas I think .d_ will be non-const. Offhand I am kinda surprised that any of the visit() methods (which all want non-const) end up matching, but I have not studied the code very deeply. In any case, maybe adding a
var& data() { return d_; }
in addition to
const var& data() const { return d_; }
will help. -- -Brian McNamara (lorgon@cc.gatech.edu)