From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 02:44:09
David Abrahams wrote:
> > I agree completely, and I'll even promise not to change my
> > mind for at least a week :-)
> Good! You, Aleksey and I all agree. So shall we go with this
> definition of BOOST_WORKAROUND from Gennaro Prota?
> #define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) ((symbol != 0) &&
> (symbol test))
Looks good to me. How about keeping it in a separate header, though?
Personally, I am getting annoyed by having to write, for example:
#include "boost/config.hpp" // for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT
and by tracking down whether a header still needs "boost/config.hpp" include
after you've removed, let's say, all BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG references.
> And, I suggest
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, |0x569)
> As the standard "comment" about the last known version where the
> workaround is needed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk