Daryle Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
[TRUNCATE]Hmmmm - I never imagined that something like this would be so problematic.
For now with my VC 7.0 compiler I can use the following and it
gives me almost exactly what I need. The warning message points
exactly to the place in my code where I have invoked it - just like BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT.
I would hope something like this could be boostified so that I could use it outside of a function.
My point was that warnings are non-portable constructions made up by compiler makers.
So are the semantics of #include. That doesn't mean we can't count on certain similarities (though they may be hard to find).
Actually, the semantics of #include aren't that made up; they are constrained by standard. In contrast, a compiler doesn't even have to have warnings, let alone define them in an easy-to-exploit manner or with any similarity to other compilers.
I don't want to see a big effort (i.e. a long #if/#elif chain from heck with subtle details and could break at the next release of any compiler) on something that is inherently non-portable.
Daryle
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
