On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:09:19 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Could we subordinate BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG to >> defined(BOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG)? > >Even if we're willing to break user code and tell them they have to >define that macro explicitly, we'd have to be very careful; we have >tests that exercise long long and we don't want to break those or >disable that part of the testing. Yes. Those tests would simply have to #define BOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG. All the rest would remain the same. The idea was for defined(BOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG) to be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition to *define* BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG. At the point of usage one would still deal with BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG only, and the typical code snippet involving long long would still appear as: #ifdef BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG ... #endif (Maybe the idea is clearer if one mentally renames BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG to BOOST_USE_LONG_LONG) Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
