3 Jul 10:36
is_base_of<int, int> behaviour.
From: John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk>
Subject: is_base_of<int, int> behaviour.
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Date: 2009-07-03 08:40:25 GMT
Subject: is_base_of<int, int> behaviour.
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
Date: 2009-07-03 08:40:25 GMT
Folks, Some time ago we made is_base_of<int,int>::value true, for reasons that escape me, and the TR1 followed this. However, C++0X makes is_base_of<non_class, non_class>::value to be false, which seems all round more logical to me. While I'm sorting out what is_base_of<T, const T> does, it's a good time to fix this as well. Are there any objections to changing the behaviour of is_base_of to match C++0X? Cheers, John. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
> There is another VC7.1 compiler conformance issue:
>
> static_pool now has the contained pool_base class. The pool_base::submit
> method constructs a handle<>, however, this has the VC7.1 'friend access to
> contained class' problem.
>
> The handle<> (non-default) constructor is private, granting friend access
> to static_pool, however, static_pool<>::pool_base requires access, and
> VC7.1 barfs.
>
> I couldn't figure out the friend syntax (that works) to add to class
> handle<>, so for now I'm working with handle<> (hacked as) public.
> (Note: earlier versions of gcc, e.g. 3.4.4, will exhibit this problem,
> too.)
RSS Feed