On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

2014-05-31 13:59 GMT+02:00 Andrzej Krzemienski :

...

2014-05-31 10:01 GMT+02:00 Andrey Semashev :

Hi,

...

I've noticed there's boost/detail/none_t.hpp header, which basically reflects boost/none_t.hpp. Worse even, it would cause a conflict if both these headers are included. A search didn't reveal any users of this header. Since it's a detail, could this header be removed?

I noted your suggestion. I need a couple of days to investigate.

It is now removed in 'develop'. Even optional wasn't using it.

Great, thanks. Will it be in 1.56? And the fix for gcc 4.4 move in C++11 mode?

2014-06-03 19:00 GMT+02:00 Andrzej Krzemienski :

2014-06-03 18:05 GMT+02:00 Andrey Semashev :

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski

...

wrote:

...

2014-05-31 13:59 GMT+02:00 Andrzej Krzemienski :

...

2014-05-31 10:01 GMT+02:00 Andrey Semashev

Hi,

...

I've noticed there's boost/detail/none_t.hpp header, which basically reflects boost/none_t.hpp. Worse even, it would cause a conflict if both these headers are included. A search didn't reveal any users of this header. Since

it's

...

a detail, could this header be removed?

I noted your suggestion. I need a couple of days to investigate.

It is now removed in 'develop'. Even optional wasn't using it.

Great, thanks.

Will it be in 1.56? And the fix for gcc 4.4 move in C++11 mode?

yes and yes -- this is my plan.

The changes are in master now.

&rzej