From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-11 10:51:31
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:09:19 -0500, David Abrahams
>Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Could we subordinate BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG to
>Even if we're willing to break user code and tell them they have to
>define that macro explicitly, we'd have to be very careful; we have
>tests that exercise long long and we don't want to break those or
>disable that part of the testing.
Yes. Those tests would simply have to #define BOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG.
All the rest would remain the same.
The idea was for defined(BOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG) to be a necessary
(but not sufficient) condition to *define* BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG. At the
point of usage one would still deal with BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG only, and
the typical code snippet involving long long would still appear as:
(Maybe the idea is clearer if one mentally renames BOOST_HAS_LONG_LONG
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk