From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-13 19:46:05
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:52:59 -0000, "John Maddock"
> <jm_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>I hear what you say, but I keep coming back to: this is largely an Intel
>>compiler specific problem,
> No, it's a matter of not making a silent use of non standard features.
>>and most users really do expect their libraries
>>to support long long whenever the compiler does.
> Maybe. But we can't second such attitudes. Otherwise someone might
> expect __complex__, or incomplete enumeration types. Where do you
>>Personally I don't want to
>>have to answer a flood of questions along the lines of "why doesn't
>>some_type_trait<long long> work correctly?"
> Oh, that's really underestimating users' intelligence.
There's no need for us to argue about this, is there? Can't we detect
whether the compiler is supporting "long long" and only enable the
long long code under those circumstances? In fact, /don't/ we do
If this is just about inconvenient warnings, it seems to me that
telling people "disable long long support or disable the warning" is a
perfectly sensible approach.
What am I missing?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk