> No it does *not*. Please re-read the docs. OK, mea culpa, I've read them again.
> I have no opinion on which one is better for this case, but they are > different! Good, goes along well with my point - boost code for format uses _different_ macros to detect the same thing. The result is that code wants to use msvc_disambiguater (wrongly) and then can't see it's definiton (correctly). For BOOST_TESTED_AT to do anything useful, we MUST define BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS, otherwise fix stays even if new compiler obsoletes workaround, which is what happened in this case. On the other hand, without BOOST_TESTED_AT, assumption is that new compiler _always_ obsoletes the workaround, so I see that for some cases it (BOOST_TESTED_AT) is useful. But for this particular case, it should at least be the same macro for two dependent places in the code, no? Drazen _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
