[boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-09 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 08:49:01 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >No, I just meant that a falsely succeeding test is very _unlucky_. Yeah. The reason why I said it was a lucky case is that I was thinking to real code, not to the test: in real code where you want #if BOOST_WORKAROU

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-09 Thread David Abrahams
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I apologize for the tardy reply but, as it often happens, it was late > night here when I received your post. > > On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:20:27 -0500, David Abrahams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Actually,

[boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-09 Thread Gennaro Prota
I apologize for the tardy reply but, as it often happens, it was late night here when I received your post. On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 18:20:27 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Actually, you "fall" into using >> SOME_COMPILER_MACRO1 but, luc

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread David Abrahams
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:45:39 -0500, David Abrahams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Well, there's no problem with __SUNPRO_CCBOOST_NUMERIC_DEFINED_SUFFIX, just >>> with __SUNPRO_CC1. >> >>We seem to be talkin

[boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:45:39 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Well, there's no problem with __SUNPRO_CCBOOST_NUMERIC_DEFINED_SUFFIX, just >> with __SUNPRO_CC1. > >We seem to be talking past one another. I've been trying to tell you >tha

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread David Abrahams
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > [snip] >> >>> // untested >> >>> #define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFI

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread Gennaro Prota
--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [snip] > >>> // untested > >>> #define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1) > >>> #define BOOS

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread David Abrahams
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] >>> // untested >>> #define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1) >>> #define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) \ >>> (BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINE

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread David Abrahams
Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:16:39 -0500, David Abrahams > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >>I've just checked in boost/detail/workaround.hpp, which defines the >>BOOST_WORKAROUND macro. >> >>This macro can and should be used in place of explicit tests for >>p

[boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:34:48 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] >> // untested >> #define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1) >> #define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) \ >> (BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) && symbol test) > >This will fail if "symbol

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread Gennaro Prota
--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > // untested > > #define BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) BOOST_JOIN(symbol, 1) > > #define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) \ > > (BOOST_PSEUDO_IS_DEFINED(symbol) && symbol test) > > This will fail if "symbol1" is defined, won't it? Why?

[boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-08 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:16:39 -0500, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I've just checked in boost/detail/workaround.hpp, which defines the >BOOST_WORKAROUND macro. > >This macro can and should be used in place of explicit tests for >particular compiler/library/platform versions. Just so

Re: [boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-06 Thread David Abrahams
Samuel Krempp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > le Vendredi 6 Décembre 2002 20:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivit : > >> non-workaround code should appear first, > > [...] > >> So I suggest that we give in >> to reality and put the workaround code at the bottom of the chain of >> #if directives. > > errr,

[boost] Re: new macro - BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test)

2002-12-06 Thread Samuel Krempp
le Vendredi 6 Décembre 2002 20:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] écrivit : > non-workaround code should appear first, [...] > So I suggest that we give in > to reality and put the workaround code at the bottom of the chain of > #if directives. errr, I guess you meant the *non*-workaround code at the bottom