Re: # [boost] Preprocessor: compiler/library/user bug?

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))
[...]
Paul Mensonides:
>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
>anymore.

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 
vendor?

-Vesa Karvonen

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com