"Arkadiy Vertleyb" <vertleyb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ds90da$fgt$1@sea.gmane.org...
Hi Andy,
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
I have been testing out replacing my return type deduction scheme in signatures with typeof. see code and errors at the end.
I've seen this kind of problem before. It exists in gcc in both native and compliant mode, and can be workarounded by factoring out typeof invocation into a separate template, something like this:
[...] OK . The workaround is sort of what I had already as the return type deduction scheme. BTW a general question. Should the non-workaround be being tested? I'm not sure what test policy should be on something you know is going to fail. Do you add this to tests bundled with the library?. Or do you just put in the workaround IOW effectively not testing this? For example if a user finds a test failing then they will assume the library is unusable right? OTOH the test is provided documenting the workaround. Is there a policy on this? regards Andy Little