"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