Re: [boost] Re: Request for static_constant.hpp

From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-15 06:34:44

> Ok, you've said "yes"!

Followed by a large *but* ;-)

> > but BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT is dependent upon the config, even if the rest
> >of your code is not, sorry :-/
>
> Which is what I said in reply to Gustavo. That doesn't mean that you
> have to include boost/config *instead* of static_constant.hpp.

If BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT were independent of the config then it would be a
good idea, but it's not so it's not such a good idea IMO - I don't see any
point in having a header that just contains:

#include <boost/config.hpp>

and nothing else.  All we're doing is creating more work for the
preprocessor to do for no good reason IMO.

John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm