On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:31 AM, John Maddock<john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
Not quite, there was some discussion on the mailing list about that feature request (including with the OP) and there was a clear consensus for *not* modifying remove_pointer, but for adding a new trait (which the OP was happy with as far as I recall). Yes, the original post also included something along the lines of "or add a new trait". My point was only that member_pointer did not satisfy his request.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:31 AM, John Maddock<john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
The reason for not using the "obvious simple implementation" BTW is two fold:
* It doesn't work for all compilers. * It doesn't handle compiler extensions like __fastcall etc. Yeah, judging by other Boost libraries I knew that the simple form is not enough due to the need for workarounds.
--SPCD "Celtic Minstrel"