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

From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-13 09:09:53

On Jul 12, 2004, at 10:03 PM, Toon Knapen wrote:

> 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.

How would you do a BOOST_WORKAROUND in a template code where you might 
not know the value of the static constant? I think that any constant 
depending on a template parameter will still have to be treated like it 
is done now.

Matthias