From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-14 14:47:43
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:49:05 +0200, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> The proposal is for several header files each containing the same
> constants, only one of which would be used for any compilation. (Users
> have been warned against using more than one! Nobody has suggested a way
> to guard against this mistake, but I think that it would be apparent
> pretty soon, probably at compile time, and at link time if not.) The
> macros constants header is the simplest and could be used to provide the
> appropiate value(s) above.
The difference IMHO is, that this is not a generic approach. It's a bit
like replacing templates with macros. I haven't seen any convincing
arguments against the code I showed, which *is* generic IMHO, but as I
don't have the background of the "long saga" you mentioned, I think I'm
not the right one to say what's the best way to go.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk