[boost] Re: Little patch for static_assert.hpp

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-21 08:00:38

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 03:06:29 +0100, "Giovanni Bajo"
<giovannibajo_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>Gennaro Prota wrote:

>+ #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))
>

Yes, it's just that the latter triggers gcc's -Wundef. I don't have a
strong opinion here, but there seems to be agreement that gcc users
should be allowed to use that switch.

If you are wondering why BOOST_WORKAROUND isn't itself defined in
terms of the defined operator:

http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg40249.php

>And, didnt't we settle for using BOOST_MY_COMPILER instead of checking
>__MY_COMPILER__ directly?

Well, yes, we could wait for the config system to be updated, before
changing static_assert.hpp.

>We could try and follow this convention at least for
>new code we add.

Agreed.

>
>>> 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.

<paranoid>
But it can conflict with user defined macros.
</paranoid>

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

Aah! How could I miss that. Sorry, Aleksey!

--
Genny.