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 ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk