Re: List bandwidth and compiler problems [was Solaris Forte 6u.1 ...]

From: Gennadiy E. Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-07 15:07:42

Good idea. I had to introduce BOOST_SUNPRO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION. 
But still in all placess you will see 
if !defined(BOOST_NO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION) || defined
(BOOST_SUNPRO_PARTIAL_SPECIALIZATION)

Though again  - I agree It looks better that way.

Gennadiy.

--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 01:40 PM 9/7/2001, Gennadiy E. Rozental wrote:
> 
>  >--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
>  >> Beyond that, several of the proposed fixes seem to spread 
compiler
>  >> version checking out into individual library files.  The whole 
point
>  >> of config.hpp (and the replacement config system just reviewed) 
is
>  >> to centralize configuration information in one easy to maintain 
> location.
>  >
>  >I agree with you. But Can you propose how to do this?
> 
> I'm not sure at what level you're asking that question.
> 
> A simplistic answer is just to look at the config docs and header.  
See 
> http://www.boost.org/libs/config/index.htm or config.htm in John 
Maddock's 
> newly accepted config system.
> 
> If you are asking at a somewhat deeper level how to deal with a 
compiler 
> which "sort of" supports a feature, then look at how config.hpp 
handles 
> VC++ member templates, for example:
> 
> #   if _MSC_VER <= 1200  // 1200 == VC++ 6.0
> ...
> //    VC++ 6.0 has member templates but they have numerous problems 
> including
> //    cases of silent failure, so for safety we define:
> #     define BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES
> //    For VC++ experts wishing to attempt workarounds, we define:
> #     define BOOST_MSVC6_MEMBER_TEMPLATES
> 
> Then boost code which doesn't want to try to use the feature looks 
for 
> BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES, while code which wants to apply a 
compiler 
> specific workaround looks for BOOST_MSVC6_MEMBER_TEMPLATES.
> 
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> --Beman