Re: [boost] Re: current_function.hpp extension

2003-07-22 Thread John Torjo 


 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 You are trying to support a compiler that is outdated and long since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

2003-07-19 Thread Peter Dimov 
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