On 10/10/2011 4:50 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Everything's green now, Eric. The problem was not pervasive after
> all; just a couple of fixes solved everything.

Whew!

> There's no need to revert. It makes me wonder though if we've missed
> something that will blow up in the future. I'll probably have to
> scrutinize classes that use proto::extends and check for overloads.

The problem is that Spirit defines its own operator overload(s) that
compete with Proto's. The officially sanctioned way of doing this with
Proto is to use a grammar to restrict Proto's overloads, and then define
your own.

Admittedly, Proto's docs could be more clear about best practice here.

> You might want to warn other proto users of this potential
> breaking change.

This will need to be mentioned in the release notes, yes.

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com
_______________________________________________
proto mailing list
proto@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto

Reply via email to