[boost] Re: Little patch for static_assert.hpp

From: Giovanni Bajo (giovannibajo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-20 21:06:29

Gennaro Prota wrote:

>> Looking further at the header, I noticed that BOOST_WORKAROUND is
>> only
>> used for __MWERKS__. Why? I guess it only makes sense to use it for
>> Borland, actually, because that would allow to detect when the
>> workaround will be outdated. If you agree with that, attached is a
>> different patch.

+ #elif defined(__MWERKS__) && (__MWERKS__ < 0x3003)                 \
+        || (defined (__BORLANDC__) &&                               \
+             BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x564)))

This should really be:

#elif BOOST_WORKAROUND(__MWERKS__, < 0x3003)  \
   || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x564))

And, didnt't we settle for using BOOST_MY_COMPILER instead of checking
__MY_COMPILER__ directly? We could try and follow this convention at least for
new code we add.

>> Secondly, is it ok that 'STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE' is all-uppercase
>> but not prefixed by 'BOOST_'?

Isn't that a class? Then it doesn't matter.

BTW, "agurt" is the (nick)name of whoever added that comment line. cvs annotate
is your friend if you can't unmangle it.
-- 
Giovanni Bajo