From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-13 05:20:26
Daniel Frey wrote:
> Markus Schöpflin wrote:
When posting the patch, I didn't even realize that the code was legal
and that this is a problem with VACPP6. And the aCC workaround fixes
the problem for VA, too.
>>This was the original source:
>>
>>template<bool, typename> struct enable_if;
>>-----------------------^
>>
>>Visual Age doesn't like this, it needs a name here.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Ah, that's the reason. But given my recent discomfort about
> unmaintainable code, look at it again:
>
> # if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__HP_aCC, <= 33900)
> template<bool cond, typename T> struct enable_if;
> # else
> template<bool, typename T> struct enable_if;
> # endif
>
> Does this really makes sense? Shouldn't we just keep one version with
> names for template parameters? AFAICS this should work for all compilers
> and it could be a general boost coding guideline to always provide names
> for template parameters. Comments?
Agreed, if it works for all compilers, let's just keep the version
with the names. (And add a comment that it should stay like it is!)
Markus