[boost] Re: Borland const/partial specialization weirdness?

"Doug Gregor" <dgregor@cs.indiana.edu> skrev i meddelandet news:200407161551.10359.dgregor@cs.indiana.edu...

I'm rather confused over the tuple_test_bench failure in Borland 5.6.4:

http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/cs-win32_metacomm/developer/output/bin-...

Borland supports partial specialization, but I seem to remember some

weirdness

with its handling of cv-qualifiers in partial specializations. Does anyone know if this is the case, or how the weirdness goes?

The problems I have seen with Borland did go away when the <const T> specialization was put before the <T> specialization in the source. Is that it? Bo Persson