From: daniel_james_at_[hidden]
Date: 2007-12-04 18:22:11
Author: danieljames
Date: 2007-12-04 18:22:10 EST (Tue, 04 Dec 2007)
New Revision: 41708
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/41708
Log:
Update a link in MPL documentation.
Text files modified:
branches/fix-links/libs/mpl/doc/tutorial/broken-integral-constant.html | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Modified: branches/fix-links/libs/mpl/doc/tutorial/broken-integral-constant.html
==============================================================================
--- branches/fix-links/libs/mpl/doc/tutorial/broken-integral-constant.html (original)
+++ branches/fix-links/libs/mpl/doc/tutorial/broken-integral-constant.html 2007-12-04 18:22:10 EST (Tue, 04 Dec 2007)
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
for one compiler to break another one and vice-versa. If this
sounds like a maintenance nightmare to you, it is! If you are
interested in the specific list of issues, please refer to John
-Maddock's excellent "<a class="reference" href="../../../../more/int_const_guidelines.htm" target="_top">Coding Guidelines for Integral Constant
+Maddock's excellent "<a class="reference" href="http://beta.boost.org/development/int_const_guidelines.html" target="_top">Coding Guidelines for Integral Constant
Expressions</a>" summary. For the purpose of our discission here, it
is sufficient to say that if your code has to work on one of the
compilers listed as problematic in this area, you can safely assume