> So you would prefer
>
> #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <= 33900)
> template<bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if;
> #elif BOOST_WORKAROUND(__VisualAge, <= 12345) // Dummy values
> template<bool, typename T> struct enable_if;
> #else
> template<bool, typename> struct enable_if;
> #endif
>
> over
>
> template<bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if;
>
> If that is the case, then we disagree. Do you have any reason to prefer
> the first version?
No, I would prefer
#if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <=33900) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__VisualAge,
<=12345)
template <bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if;
#else
template <bool, typename> struct enable_if;
#endif
I already explained the reason: C++ compiler vendors use Boost with
BOOST_NO_CONFIG for conformance testing. I'd rather see broken compilers
get fixed than developers forever spending time finding workarounds.
Dave
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
