On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:53:15 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here are three ways to spell it: > > 1... > > 2 #if BOOST_WORKAROUND( > __BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x561) && __BORLANDC__ >= 0x561) > 3... Though it works in some cases, I would generally advise against combining BOOST_TESTED_AT with other tests in the same BOOST_WORKAROUND invocation. The problem is that the current implementation is parenthesis "unguarded". For instance (when BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS is defined) the above yields the following symbol test part: (__BORLANDC__ > 0x561) ?(-1): ( 1 && __BORLANDC__ >= 0x561) As you can see the second condition is and-ed with 1, not with BOOST_TESTED_AT altogether. That's not a problem in this specific case but, IMHO, it's better not to run any risk. P.S.: The parentheses around 1 && __BORLANDC__ >= 0x561 above come from the BOOST_OPEN_PAREN hack (see implementation) but they are not the cause of the problem. Without them you would have (__BORLANDC__ > 0x561 ?(-1): 1 && __BORLANDC__ >= 0x561) which has the same binding, because of operator precedence. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
