Re: [boost] Possible defect macros for BCB for config.hpp

From: John Maddock (john_maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-13 06:17:17

> If a macro is added to describe this, then this may for example be called
> BOOST_NO_DEPENDENT_SPECIALIZATION.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure about the name - the specialisation isn't
"dependent" in the usual sense (ie dependent upon another template
parameter).

> Another problem with BCB is its handling of non-type template parameters.
> This appears to not be mentioned in config.hpp or borland.hpp, either.

There's actually a small paper on this, as a number of compilers have
problems in this area: have you looked at: "Coding Guidelines for Integral
Constant Expressions" www.boost.org/more/int_const_guidelines.htm

>
> Even doing a minor change in the above, makes it work on BCB, too. For
> example, replacing TestHelper::value with 1. However, in real code, this
may
> not be possible to do. This is just to demonstrate it in the simplest way.
> The above is also the kind of code that is used in Loki, and I had to make
> workarounds for it.

Does the code work if you use BOOST_STATIC_CONST rather than enum's, and
::fully::qualified::names when referencing the values?  If following the
coding guidelines works then we can probably live without the macro?

Thanks for the feedback,

John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm