Boost logo

Boost :

From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-30 10:53:46

On 1/30/02 3:32 AM, "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I'm worried about ODR violations: in one translation-unit, an implementation
> choice might get made based on the state of the macro, while the other TU
> includes boost/limits.hpp and so gets a different implmentation of the same
> code. Since we can't force people to use boost/limits.hpp, we probabaly
> ought to define a macro which says whether boost/limits.hpp gives you
> compile-time constants (or change the meaning of the existing macro).

That makes sense. We can think of it as a feature of <boost/limits.hpp>.
It's too bad, because this introduces the first difference between
<boost/limits.hpp> and a standard-conforming <limits>, other than the file

You'll have to pardon me for suggesting the name
BOOST_LIMITS_NO_COMPILE_TIME_CONSTANTS. While the name does make logical
sense, it's no-doubt a terrible choice because it's so similar to the other

I think it's a great idea for <boost/limits.hpp> to export a macro which
communicates this.

    -- Darin

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