I'd categorise it as a breaking change, not a bug. But perhaps that's just semantics. In any case it would have been nice to have seen it in the release notes. But I don't really understand the problem if you can control the behaviour through a macro? Personally I'd rather have the more optimal code.

2012/2/22 Igor R <boost.lists@gmail.com>
> I don't see anything in that thread that suggests this is a bug. I think
> Steve's statement that the limitation can be worked around by using
> make_variant_over is no longer valid

...and this is the bug (i.e. undesired behavior), isn't it.

> since some pretty crucial variant
> visitation code uses preprocessor metaprogramming and
> BOOST_VARIANT_LIMIT_SIZE is central to this (take a look at
> BOOST_VARIANT_VISITATION_UNROLLING_LIMIT in visitation_impl.hpp). Perhaps
> this is something new since that thread (2008) - however I don't see
> anything in the release notes from 145 to 147 which would suggest that
> something changed here (145 is the version I upgraded from when this last
> worked for me).

Yes, that's what I wrote in the original post (see the link there):
some optimization was made in 1.46, it was not reflected in the
release notes, and I guess this change caused the issue we're talking
about.
Maybe Steven could shed some light on this.
_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users