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.
> : public _Integer_limits<wchar_t, INT_MIN, INT_MAX>
> : 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk