Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-02 07:31:20

>Maybe we should be checking BOOST_NO_LIMITS_COMPILE_TIME_CONSTANTS instead
>of just BOOST_NO_LIMITS? It seems like we could correct for this
>4.0 deficiency... but then we'd have to put our limits in a different
>namespace from std (e.g. boost/detail).

I did suggest that in a previous message, but Jens was against it,
personally I don't mind either way.

>#ifndef _WIN32
>class numeric_limits<wchar_t>
> : public _Integer_limits<wchar_t, INT_MIN, INT_MAX>
>class numeric_limits<wchar_t>
> : public _Integer_limits<wchar_t, 0, USHRT_MAX>
>Is a test for the target OS really the right one to be doing here?

What else should we do? gcc on Win32 has a "short" wchar_t, where as it's
int sized on all other gcc platforms as far as I know.

>Shouldn't we replace BOOST_STL_DECLARE_LIMITS_MEMBER with

Sure, I just ran out of time, although as this is basically a gcc only
workaround does it matter that much?

- John Maddock

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at