From: Vesa Karvonen (vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 01:49:00
> > preprocessing concatenation operation results in two valid
> > preprocessing tokens
> > BOOST_PP_CAT(other.d_,PPV_NAME(I))
>It is a valid concatenation of the preprocessing token "d_" and the
>preprocessing token "some_value" that yields the single, valid
>preprocessing token "d_some_value". "other." shouldn't matter
Wouldn't it be logical to assume that BOOST_PP_REPEAT has, in fact, been
used on the compiler in question before - without getting warning messages?
Wouldn't it be logical then to look for the cause of the warning in the
parameters passed to BOOST_PP_REPEAT rather than in BOOST_PP_REPEAT?
(It was my intention to point out the only code snippet, that has some
correlation with the error message.)
Wouldn't it be good engineering practice to test whether the above code does
indeed cause the warning message, or is the warning message caused by
BOOST_PP_REPEAT or something else?
(I can't perform this test, because I don't have the compiler in question.)
If you are indeed correct, and the compiler in question does indeed
incorrectly emit the warning for the code that I pointed out, then wouldn't
it be good engineering practice to file a defect report to the compiler
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk