Re: [boost] Re: current_function.hpp extension
> > John Torjo schrieb: > > > Exactly! Don't do anything! But in order not to do anything, I need to know > > whether the compiler support a FUNCTION-like macro or not. > > > > Otherwise, I won't know (and assume it has), and print to the user something > > like: > > > > function= '(unknown)'. > > > > Which would you prefer? > > I although think, that some additional detection macro, a la > > BOOST_HAS_NO_CURRENT_FUNCTION_AVAILABLE > > would be useful and consistent to other deficiency flags already existing > in the Boost library. > > Just my personal 0.02 EURO > True. With my 0.02 EURO, we already got 4 cents ;-) Best, John ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Re: current_function.hpp extension
> 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 You are trying to support a compiler that is outdated and long since 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
Re: [boost] Re: current_function.hpp extension
Daniel Frey wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:08:24 +0200, Pavel Vozenilek wrote: > >> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... >> SMART_ASSERT library implements BOOST_HAS_CURRENT_FUNCTION equivalent >> (it would be ugly to print out the default text). > > Log-output again. And look at that workaround they used: > Runtime-checking the values. Isn't that ugly? (No offense intended > to the SMART_ASSERT-folks :) Yes, it's ugly to see "Assertion failed in function (unknown)". The ugliness provides a strong incentive for people to submit patches that make BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION work on the compilers they are interested in. That's the goal. Sneaky, huh. ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
