Beman Dawes wrote: > * Patches really are best to be supplied as diff output; that cuts errors > applying them. The -c switch helps make them more readable. It may be > better to attach the diff output as a file, if long lines would be wrapped > by pasting it inline.
Is this form better? [diff through WinCVS] cvs diff uniform_smallint.hpp (in directory C:\Projects\3rdParty\boost\boost\random\) Index: uniform_smallint.hpp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/random/uniform_smallint.hpp,v retrieving revision 1.20 diff -r1.20 uniform_smallint.hpp 190a191,192 > #elif defined( __BORLANDC__ ) > typedef typename detail::uniform_smallint< boost::is_float<typename >UniformRandomNumberGenerator::result_type>::value == false >::BOOST_NESTED_TEMPLATE >impl<UniformRandomNumberGenerator, IntType>::type impl_type; *****CVS exited normally with code 1***** cvs diff uniform_int.hpp (in directory C:\Projects\3rdParty\boost\boost\random\) Index: uniform_int.hpp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/random/uniform_int.hpp,v retrieving revision 1.21 diff -r1.21 uniform_int.hpp 208a209,210 > #elif defined( __BORLANDC__ ) > typedef typename detail::uniform_int< boost::is_float<typename >UniformRandomNumberGenerator::result_type>::value == false >::BOOST_NESTED_TEMPLATE >impl<UniformRandomNumberGenerator, IntType>::type impl_type; *****CVS exited normally with code 1***** > * Testing for "defined( __BORLANDC__ )" is usually discouraged because it > will fail when the compiler changes to a new version which behaves > differently. Also, there may be a Boost config macro which applies, and is > the preferred way to detect a compiler deficiency. Yes, and I probably should have used the new BOOST_WORKAROUND macros too. In this case the same borland bug is responsible for both patches, suggesting that if there is not yet a BOOST_specific macro to test it might be useful to add one. Of course, there may already be one that is appropriate known to those more familiar with the workarounds. The issue is with (at least) Borland's treatment of BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT. For some reason it refuses to allow use of const static bool members without a class instance. In this case all that was needed was a compile-time boolean flag to pick the right specialization so the test could be performed directly in-place. -- AlisdairM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost