From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-18 01:40:23
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Paul Mensonides wrote:
>>> Yep, they do - that's why I named it "BOOST_PP_REPEAT +
>>> BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM bug".
>> That is what I figured, but I wanted to make sure that the (a, b, c)
>> wasn't causing a problem--which it shouldn't be anyway. I'll look
>> at this later when I have time to install VC6 on my other computer.
> That would be much appreciated.
Okay, this is "fixed," but before you update, this is the reduction of the
problem. First, it has nothing to do with BOOST_PP_REPEAT per se. Rather it is
the kind of instability that I mentioned before relative to IS_UNARY, since
SEQ_ELEM does a similar kind of thing. Take a look:
#define X() ...
#define A(seq) BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(0, seq)
#define B(seq) (BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(0, seq))
#define C(seq) ID( BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(0, seq) )
#define D(seq) ID(( BOOST_PP_SEQ_ELEM(0, seq) ))
#define ID(x) x
A( (X)(Y) ) // X
B( (X)(Y) ) // (X)
C( (X)(Y) ) // X
D( (X)(Y) ) // 0
The last one is wrong. It should expand to (X). This should be fixed now, but
it illustrates the kind of encapsulation issues that I was referring to before.
As far as the other bug is concerned, here is the reduction of the problem:
// entire file...
VC6 expects to find the open parentheses of a macro invocation, but instead it
finds EOF. There is nothing that I can do to fix this one. However, VC7 seems
to have fixed this problem, at least.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk