JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
Hi Peter
Don't automatically jump to conclusions that partial ordering is broken; more often than not, it is the code that is broken.
How I wished that was true :) more often than not, making my library work for a wide range of compilers had nothing to do with my code compliance. This particular case is, to my delight, an exception.
You are right. Sorry. It's just that I notice a disturbing tendency to define global defect macros to work around a particular failure in a particular library. Even if the compiler is indeed at fault, and sometimes it is not, the shortcoming usually does not affect the other 50+ libraries in Boost. Defining the global defect macro would be a bit harsh. This has been true in the old Boost days as well, but lately the compilers are more right and the code is more wrong. :-)