From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 15:35:26
"Arias Brent-P96059" <Brent.Arias_at_[hidden]> writes:
> As you can see in the above definition, I've included an explicit
> "false" clause for BOOST_PP_IIF() that expands into the harmless
> (and utterly superfluous) expression "static void PP_NILFUNC();". I
> would instead have preferred to use BOOST_PP_EXPR_IIF and thus avoid
> the eye-sore. But the hack was necessary, as I said before, because
> BOOST_PP_SEQ_ENUM does not elogantly handle the empty "false" result
> of BOOST_PP_EXPR_IIF.
> Can this be fixed?
I seriously doubt it. The fact that you can't represent an empty SEQ
is a known limitation that Paul would have avoided had it been
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk