Re: [boost] Re: Proposed Boost config macro

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-09 10:23:07

Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Monday 09 December 2002 15:32, Samuel Krempp wrote:
>> On the opposite hand, using the same kind of naming scheme,
>> #ifdef BOOST_NEED_UNREACHABLE_RETURN
>>      return whatever;
>> #endif
>
> Well all the time I got really confused in this discussion but this proposal 
> is very clear to me. I definitly would prefer this one.

Well, on third look I see that this only stimulates warnings on any of
the compilers I have access to. I wonder if it was worth inciting all
this traffic and work for :(

Maybe so: I like to compile with "all warnings are errors" enabled.

I also note that BOOST_NEED_xxx is not consistent with our naming
scheme. It would have to be something like what we have:

   BOOST_NO_UNREACHABLE_RETURN_DETECTION

.
-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution