> John Torjo wrote: > > > Yes, I remain unconvinced ;-) > > This is because some compilers do not provide such a FUNCTION facility. > > VC6 is one of them. What should I do for it? > > It sounds like you are asking for the wrong macro! > You are trying to support a compiler that is outdated and long since > replaced (but remains in widespread use) A FUNCTION_NAME patch is > unlikely to become available. > > Rather than assuming BOOST_FUNCTION_NAME is not available unless > implemented though, you really want a macro that says 'this compiler is > broken and will never be fixed', BOOST_NO_FUNCTION_NAME or similar. So > long as we are strict on allowing compilers into the list, I think all > interests might be served?
Yes, it looks ok. But I guess we're on the same side ;-) This is what we wanted with BOOST_HAS_CURRENT_FUNCTION : just to tell us if the current compiler has a FUNCTION_NAME facility. (so, it could be renamed: BOOST_HAS_FUNCTION_NAME) If we find that a current compiler has a FUNCTION_NAME facility, we (the maintainer, of course) update the current_function.hpp header. Where am I wrong? Best, John > > -- > AlisdairM > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost