Re: [boost] [Config] Testing instructions for compiler vendors

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 08:08:57

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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
>
> instead of
>
>     #include "boost/config/static_constant.hpp"
>
> 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.

Fine with me.  I never intended to move it until John suggested it.
The two of you can duke it out over this one, as far as I'm concerned ;->

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