"Paul Mensonides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> > In other words, there are a lot of possibilities. Consider my other
> list
>> > bogus.
>>
>> Unfortunately I like all of the above except the last one. I'd even
>> like the last one, perhaps best of all, if it were:
>>
>> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (?) <= 0x530)
>>
>> So I think I'll have to ask other people to weigh in here. Do you
>> have any preferences, anyone?
>
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (!) <= 0x530)
Why that one? Isn't this getting a little obscure?
Does anybody else care how this turns out?
In the meantime, Paul, why don't you go ahead and implement your
suggestion in boost/detail/workaround.hpp, and we'll take it from
there.
-Dave
--
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
