From: Richard Smith (richard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-03 13:40:33
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> Richard Smith <richard <at> ex-parrot.com> writes:
>
> > I've just found what I believe to be a new regression on the
> > boost RC_1_34_0 branch relative to the 1.33.1 release. The
> > example below is a simplified extract of some real world
> > where the behaviour of boost::none silently changes.
>
> Doesn't internal linkage in headers have the same
> problem as unnamed namespaces? Is there some reason
> we can't use
[...]
This works for me:
namespace boost {
namespace detail { struct none_helper {}; }
typedef int (*none_t)(detail::none_helper);
inline int none(detail::none_helper) { return 0; }
}
(Which is your version with the obvious typos and warnings
corrected.) That removes the regression I was describing.
But I don't have ready access to one of the compilers
(Borland or VC7.1 ?) that exhibits problems with precompiled
headers.
Richard Smith