Yitzhak Sapir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> And, I suggest
>>
>> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, |0x569)
>
> Since I began wondering whether it was a typo that you used | instead of
> &, since the | obviously always evaluates true, leading me to browse this
> thread, I think something more descriptive (not necessarily as long as the
> following) might be helpful:
>
> #define WORKAROUND_LAST_CHECKED_AT_VERSION(version) |1 // documentation macro only
> ...
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, WORKAROUND_LAST_CHECKED_AT_VERSION(0x569))
That's awfully verbose, though. And it would need a "BOOST_" prefix,
making it more verbose still.
Given that the meaning of BOOST_WORKAROUND is already non-transparent,
you need to read the documentation to understand it. I think it'd be
best to simply document the "|" convention there.
--
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
