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
Though again - I agree It looks better that way.
--- 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
> >> version checking out into individual library files. The whole
> >> of config.hpp (and the replacement config system just reviewed)
> >> to centralize configuration information in one easy to maintain
> >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.
> http://www.boost.org/libs/config/index.htm or config.htm in John
> newly accepted config system.
> If you are asking at a somewhat deeper level how to deal with a
> which "sort of" supports a feature, then look at how config.hpp
> VC++ member templates, for example:
> # if _MSC_VER <= 1200 // 1200 == VC++ 6.0
> // VC++ 6.0 has member templates but they have numerous problems
> // 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
> BOOST_NO_MEMBER_TEMPLATES, while code which wants to apply a
> specific workaround looks for BOOST_MSVC6_MEMBER_TEMPLATES.
> Does that answer your question?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk