From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-15 06:34:44
> Ok, you've said "yes"!
Followed by a large *but* ;-)
> > but BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT is dependent upon the config, even if the rest
> >of your code is not, sorry :-/
> Which is what I said in reply to Gustavo. That doesn't mean that you
> have to include boost/config *instead* of static_constant.hpp.
If BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT were independent of the config then it would be a
good idea, but it's not so it's not such a good idea IMO - I don't see any
point in having a header that just contains:
and nothing else. All we're doing is creating more work for the
preprocessor to do for no good reason IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk