Re: [boost] Re: erroneous use of BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT ?

From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-12 14:15:47

On Jul 12, 2004, at 1:37 PM, Toon Knapen wrote:

> John Maddock wrote:
>
>>> I wonder if it's possible to use preprocessor tricks to have
>>> BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT generate enums (on IBM only) whenever they will
>>> fit?  After all, integral constants _can_ be managed by the
>>> preprocessor.
>> So they can, but not with BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT as is:
>> BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(long long, value = 0ULL);
>> as far as I know there's no way to do different things depending upon 
>> the
>> second argument here, but I'd love to be proved wrong (and be very 
>> impressed
>> as well!).
>
> We already have BOOST_WORKAROUND. What I can do is provide a 
> BOOST_WORKAROUND that will use an enum if the datatype is not too 
> wide. Simple but effective!
>
> historical note: The reason I brought this up was because Mathias 
> Troyer  asked me to remove the BOOST_NO_INCLASS_MEMBER_INITIALIZATION 
> in the config for vacpp version 6. And indeed, vacpp can handle the 
> initialization but does not comply with the DR (so one can argue if 
> BOOST_NO_INCLASS_MEMBER_INITALIZATION should be defined or not). 
> Defining it however caused a problem in the random library however 
> (Mathias can you recall what exactly happened and why).

Yes, the problem was that one of the constants was intialized with a 
64-bit constant, and that did not fit into an int. If it is important I 
could reproduce it tomorrow and report it.

Matthias