From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-13 17:07:26
"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> > In other words, there are a lot of possibilities. Consider my other
>> > bogus.
>> Unfortunately I like all of the above except the last one. I'd even
>> like the last one, perhaps best of all, if it were:
>> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (?) <= 0x530)
>> So I think I'll have to ask other people to weigh in here. Do you
>> have any preferences, anyone?
> BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (!) <= 0x530)
Why that one? Isn't this getting a little obscure?
Does anybody else care how this turns out?
In the meantime, Paul, why don't you go ahead and implement your
suggestion in boost/detail/workaround.hpp, and we'll take it from
-- 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