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