David Abrahams wrote:
> > I agree completely, and I'll even promise not to change my
> > mind for at least a week :-)
>
> Good! You, Aleksey and I all agree. So shall we go with this
> definition of BOOST_WORKAROUND from Gennaro Prota?
>
> #define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) ((symbol != 0) &&
> (symbol test))
Looks good to me. How about keeping it in a separate header, though?
Personally, I am getting annoyed by having to write, for example:
#include "boost/config.hpp" // for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT
instead of
#include "boost/config/static_constant.hpp"
and by tracking down whether a header still needs "boost/config.hpp" include
after you've removed, let's say, all BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG references.
> And, I suggest
>
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, |0x569)
>
> As the standard "comment" about the last known version where the
> workaround is needed.
>
Agreed.
Aleksey
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
