Re: [boost] Proposal for a new defect macro in Boost.Config

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-17 05:17:17

> Having into account that the bug spans across several compilers
> (at least two), is this important enough to deserve a defect macro
> in Boost.Config? If so, I can provide a test for it.

Looks like it: what do we call the macro? Do you want to supply the test
program? (see Boost.config docs for the details),

BTW, we normally wait for libraries to be accepted before committing new
config macros for them (sometimes the need for the macro goes away during
the review).

Thanks,

John.