From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-04 19:56:31
"Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jonathan
> > > #define PARAM(has_param) BOOST_PP_IF( \
> > > has_param \
> > > , BOOST_PP_IDENTITY(typename Param) \
> > > , BOOST_PP_EMPTY)()
> > >
> > Yes, that's better. It's hard to believe that VC6 could be
> > the only conforming preprocessor on this point. though ;-)
> It isn't that other compilers are non-conforming, they just chose a
> way to handle undefined behavior. C++ will likely soon have the new
Yeah, I realized this after I sent it.
> forward-thinking to handle the undefined behavior, while VC's
> the way through VC71) is just a complete relic.
Is it really the same preprocessor?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk