From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-01 03:37:35
David Abrahams wrote:
> The solution seems obvious to me: we specify a preprocessor
> symbol which, when #defined, makes the appropriate assumption for
> developers... shall we say, BOOST_DEVELOPER?
Agreed, and thanks to Aleksey for the user's perspective.
Except that I like BOOST_STRICT better (see other mails on the subject).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk