From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-12 17:36:36
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 10:29:57PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Should BOOST_TESTED_AT be defined like this?
> # define BOOST_TESTED_AT(value) <= (value)
> Am I being stupid?
Yes. Since the intention of BOOST_TESTED_AT is to pass all versions, but
allow the check to be located later and the bug checked, the current
definition is right, except for the fact it fails when used with 0.
Would this work?
# define BOOST_TESTED_AT(value) != ((value)-(value)) || (value)==0
-- "It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious." - Oscar Wilde
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk