From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 06:26:00
jhrwalter wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_s...> wrote:
>
>>jhrwalter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Basically, just use a function like this:
>>>>
>>>> template<int N> ... size(Int<N>);
>>>>
>>>>Works in MSVC++ 6 and has neat syntax.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>How do you like the idea of using free functions like
>>>
>>>template<class M, int N>
>>>size_t size (const M &m, int<N>);
>>>
>>>for these operations instead?
>>>
>>
>>I would find it less intuitive.
>>
>>Would a free function be possible in MSVC, but a template member
>>function would not ? (I'm not familiar with MSVC)
>>
>
> On the long run I see two options: MSVC gets more standard conforming
> or we'll have to consider dropping MSVC compatibility to use more
> language features.
>
> In the meantime free functions could be an easy way to achieve some
> compromises.
OK.
But what I actually was asking was : are template members in general not
possible with MSVC ? (I'm not familiar with MSVC ; I know, there's a lot
of bandwidt on MSVC compatibility but I'm lucky to be able to skip all
that at the moment)