From: Björn Karlsson (Bjorn.Karlsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-26 09:34:28
> From: Markus Schöpflin [mailto:markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]]
> Please, please, please, don't change the config. I just
> managed to get it
> turned off. :-) It breaks for all usages where the enum value
> won't fit
> in a normal integer...
> I can provide patches as I encounter problems or as problems
> are reported
> to me, but please don't change the config.
I was afraid you'd say that...
I'll apply the patches (for bool_c and integral_c) that started this thread.
So, should we augment these ~800 BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANTs? If that's what we
decide to do, I'd like to wait until 1_29_0 is shipping, and everything has
been merged back to the trunk. And there'll be a new macro
(BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT_DEFINITION, or similar) to streamline usage.
I'd really like some more opinions on this issue (because it does have an
effect on most libraries).
Constantly and statically yours,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk