"Mark Rodgers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> If this fails to compile, we may need to add a dummy "return 0;" at >> >> the end. I know of two compilers which act this way: Metrowerks and >> >> HP. >> > >> > What do you want to call it? >> >> I'm not happy with it, but... >> >> BOOST_NO_NON_RETURN_PATH_COMPREHENSION is the best I could come up >> with :( > > What about having > > BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN(0) > or > BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN("")
I like it! > I think we need to "return" values for types other than int. Of course. My suggestion would have just been used thus: #ifdef BOOST_NO_NON_RETURN_PATH_COMPREHENSION return whatever; #endif But I like yours better. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost