From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-16 12:10:54
John Swartzentruber wrote:
> There have been a couple different answers to this question (although
> fundamentally the same). This one makes the most sense to me and the
> ones that said [1] and [2] were the same didn't. Does anyone have a
> reference that would indicate that [1] and [2] are the same, or that
> [2] is illegal (or merely redundant)?
I should have paid more attention. [2] is illegal, as is [3]. I guess
8.3.2/1 says it all :)
Besides that, I just noticed that this discussion is slightly OT for
boost, so let's either end it now or move to clc++m or csc++, agreed?
Regards, Daniel
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de