On Thursday 10 March 2005 17:27, John Maddock wrote:
I think those changes all look OK, if you have cvs access, I don't see why you shouldn't commit them
I don't have write access to CVS. Furthermore, there's a chance that I missed a whole set of those checks due to the way I've been searching for them. I know I fixed some things at work in our local mirror, last Friday before going on vacation this week - I'll check back on Monday.
The change in boost/detail/lwm_win32.hpp is something where I don't claim I really understand what it does. Removing it breaks compilation, I don't know how to test if it really works.
Talk to Peter Dimov: post a message with a subject line he'll notice (one that mentions the file by name).
Will do.
The changes in boost/function/function_template.hpp are something that shouldn't break anything, except if the brackets where in fact an undocumented workaround for some other bug....
They are: I believe these are a Borland specific workaround, a better approach, and one which should work for both compilers is to use:
typedef typename ct_if< ::boost::is_void<R>::value,
For these cases (note the leading :: and the space after the <, both are important!).
Thanks for the info, I will investigate this. thanks Uli