On 3 Dec 2011, at 21:31, Alan M. Carroll wrote: > We build our company product with MSVC and g++ and haven't had any serious > template problems that were due to compiler issues (we have an issue where > there is what *I* consider a bug in the template language specification for > which MSVC has a workaround but that's not really a compiler problem). The > entire STL depends on templates and is required for all conforming C++ > compilers. I don't see compatibility being a real issue.
I've had some nasty template breakages when upgrading gcc. And I don't think it was just the major version shifts (as in 3.x to 4.x). >> I somehow tend to avoid templates myself because this is >> the major field where compiler vendors begin >> to dissagree on specification (or lack of it). I actually shifted from STL to APR for a lot of classes (like map, bag, set). No grief from gcc updates nor even other-cc since then. But if you have a good use case where templates serve best, ... -- Nick Kew
