From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-04 09:14:30
John Maddock wrote:
> Following on from the recent discussion, we now have:
>
> BOOST_NO_IS_ABSTRACT added to the config system, this is likely to cause
> some new failures with config_test.cpp until we get the macro added to
> those compiler config files that need it (although Gcc, Visual C++,
> Borland C++ are already taken care of).
>
> is_abstract no longer uses SFINAE when BOOST_NO_IS_ABSTRACT is defined,
> instead it defaults to the same value as is_polymorphic: the rationale
> is that "true" is the safe default (if there is one), but since
> non-polymorphic types obviously can't be abstract,
struct X
{
protected:
X();
~X();
};
Not abstract? I guess the trait can't detect that one anyway, though.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com