RE: [boost] Re: Inconsistency using BOOST_WORKAROUND in format library

From: Drazen DOTLIC (Drazen.Dotlic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-16 07:49:39

> 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