From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-23 11:46:48
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Didn't we decide that flags for conformance should always be in the
>> form of
>>
>> BOOST_NO_some-conforming-c++-feature
>>
>> so that unless something special is done, the assumption will be that
>> the compiler conforms?
>
> Absolutely: however BOOST_TT_HAS_CONFORMING_IS_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION was one
> of yours I believe: chuckles, ducks, runs for cover....
<dave quietly whistles "dixie" while hoping nobody notices he's
checking in the fix>
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com