From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-07 14:02:15
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> > I like it.
>> I don't (yet). Why do we need yet another macro which means "turn off
>> the workarounds?" Would BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG then be obsolete?
> I think that the idea is that BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG applies only to unknown
> compiler versions, and BOOST_DISABLE_WORKAROUNDS (do we need separate
> compiler/library macros?) would be applied unconditionally, regardless of
> whether the compiler has known defects.
What's the use of distinguishing those? Surely the person who's doing
the testing doesn't care about whether we think we "know" that
particular compiler version?
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk