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

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-12 15:03:05

Matthias Troyer wrote:

> 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.

No need to reproduce the problem. I think this confirms that 
BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT's that are not bigger than ints can be 
BOOST_WORKAROUND'ed with the enum trick until IBM conforms to DR454.

So should I implement such a workaround or is this not tought to be a 
satisfactory solution ?