"Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With BCC5.5.1 typename is _never required_ AFAIK, but it is with BCC5.6.0(4)
I guess in that case BOOST_TYPENAME or BOOST_NO_TYPENAME might be an appropriate name. I'm glad I didn't move on the renaming before you revealed the Borland issue! -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
