From: Drazen DOTLIC (Drazen.Dotlic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-16 07:49:39
> No it does *not*. Please re-read the docs.
OK, mea culpa, I've read them again.
> I have no opinion on which one is better for this case, but they are
Good, goes along well with my point - boost code for format uses
_different_ macros to detect the same thing. The result is that code
wants to use msvc_disambiguater (wrongly) and then can't see it's
For BOOST_TESTED_AT to do anything useful, we MUST define
BOOST_DETECT_OUTDATED_WORKAROUNDS, otherwise fix stays even if new
compiler obsoletes workaround, which is what happened in this case. On
the other hand, without BOOST_TESTED_AT, assumption is that new compiler
_always_ obsoletes the workaround, so I see that for some cases it
(BOOST_TESTED_AT) is useful.
But for this particular case, it should at least be the same macro for
two dependent places in the code, no?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk