I couldn't see how it was valid on other compilers, but I assumed that it had compiled on at least one compiler before being uploaded. There are similar problems in bitfield.hpp line 111 and 117 and base.hpp lines 61 and 67. I can't get enum.cpp (the test/example program) to compile for two reasons: (i) The form for boost::function is the preferred syntax rather than the portable, could it be changed to portable? test_optional_method becomes: template <typename T, typename A> void test_optional_method( A arg, typename T::optional expected, const char* method_name, boost::function1<typename T::optional, A> method ) (ii) My compiler does not like the use of 'typename' in the body of test_enum and test_bitfield, eg in test_enum test_parse(first.str(), typename T::optional(first)); becomes: test_parse(first.str(), T::optional(first)); I can't say which is the correct syntax or if the version without typename works for other compilers. On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:15:57 -0000, Yuval Ronen <ronen_yuval@yahoo.com> wrote:
Frank Laub wrote:
Is there a particular reason why this compiler complains about the conversion whereas the others are fine with it? Would you consider making this change to support this compiler?
I'm happy to make a change that supports more compilers. Thanks for trying it out on Borland. I'll have an update soon.
Actually, this is not about supporting more compilers - this about fixing a bug. Putting 'return false' there is a bug, plain and simple, and 'return optional()' is the right thing to do, whether we care about more compilers support or not...