[boost] Re: boost::format 1.30.0-b1 (again)

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