Aleksey Gurtovoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Fine with me. I never intended to move it until John suggested it. The two of you can duke it out over this one, as far as I'm concerned ;-> -- 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