From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-13 11:40:56
"Fernando Cacciola" <software_at_[hidden]> 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