Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-19 08:06:54


Russell Hind wrote:
>
> Does anybody know if this needs fixing, or is it my mistake. If it
> needs fixing, is someone able to do it before 1.30.0 is released?

Yes, I think it needs fixing!

I think simply dropping the separate test for 0x0561 is easiest, given
the Kylix test covers both. Otherwise, I think the test should have
been ||, not &&.

i.e. switch from

> Looking in format.hpp (line 43) there is
>
> #if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) || ( BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, <= 0x561) \
> && BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x570 ) ) )
> #define BOOST_BAD_ISDIGIT
> #endif

to either

> #if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x570 ) ) )
> #define BOOST_BAD_ISDIGIT
> #endif

or

> #if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) || ( BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, <= 0x564) \
> || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x570 ) ) )
> #define BOOST_BAD_ISDIGIT
> #endif

I think the idea it to use BOOST_TESTED_AT until a known version of the
compiler no longer has the issue (when the 'simple' version test is
applied)?

AlisdairM


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk