On Thursday 05 December 2002 08:51 am, David Abrahams wrote: > Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > F> On Wednesday 04 December 2002 08:53 am, David Abrahams wrote: > >> It looks like some people (ahem! <wink) have been using > >> BOOST_NO_CONFIG where they should be using BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG. See > >> boost/function/function_base.hpp. > > > > Oops. Fixed now. > > Well, now John Maddock may be quarrelling with you over the correct > approach. We need to decide how this will work. > > -Dave
It seems like places that need BOOST_(STRICT|NO)_CONFIG in the source don't fit the documentation for either macro. BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG just tells the config system how pessimistic to be w.r.t. new compiler versions. BOOST_NO_CONFIG tells the config system not to include any of its configuration headers (i.e., don't define any defect/extension macros). As it stands now, I think the right way to write compiler/library/platform-dependent workarounds is to check for _both_ BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG and BOOST_NO_CONFIG. BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG disables the workaround when dealing with a new compiler version, whereas BOOST_NO_CONFIG disables the workaround when the user has asked not to configure for the compiler. Maybe BOOST_NO_CONFIG (actually, BOOST_NO_COMPILER_CONFIG) should define BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG? Doug _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost