On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:59:43AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Some of us like to use -Werror. Some of boost does not.
That's a little cryptic. ;-)
I assume you're saying that some boost code generates a warning.
What warning?
> Please
> consider the following, non-intrusive and tested patches:
>
> diff -u /tmp/interface_oarchive.hpp
> /usr/include/boost/archive/detail/interface_oarchive.hpp
> --- /tmp/interface_oarchive.hpp 2005-05-09 09:54:24.897652747 +0200
> +++ /usr/include/boost/archive/detail/interface_oarchive.hpp 2005-05-09
> 09:54:56.611522300 +0200
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
> }
>
> template<class T>
> - const basic_pointer_oserializer * register_type(T * t = NULL){
> + const basic_pointer_oserializer * register_type(T * = NULL){
> const basic_pointer_oserializer & bpos =
> instantiate_pointer_oserializer(
> static_cast<Archive *>(NULL),
I don't understand how the patched code is legal C++.
The original code defines a templated function "register_type" that
takes an optional parameter "t" of type "T*". Is removing the
parameter name really legal?
-Steve
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
