From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-20 18:02:46
"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> It used to work a few days ago (ca. 2-4). If this is not something
>>> obvious I
>>> could try to find out which CVS commit lead to the regression.
>> Well, it's complaining that unsigned long long is not a numeric type.
>> I can't for the life of me understand why boost::numeric_cast is still
>> hanging around in cast.hpp when we have another one (that actually
>> works!) in boost/numeric/conversion/cast.hpp. This seems like fodder
>> for ODR violations. Fernando, what's up with this? Why haven't you
>> replaced the one in cast.hpp with an #include?
> I've never got to silently replace the old numeric_cast becasue mine is
> totally unusable with VC6, BC5.6.4 and gcc2.92
> I've always planned to get it to work with those compilers, but I never had
> the time :-)
> But it's been a long long time now (wow)...
> So I better do something about it.
> I see 3 options here:
> (1) Keep to old code and use it as a fallback implementation for broken
> compilers (simplest)
Fine with me.
> (2) Try to fix the new code for those compilers (hardest)
2b. You could "fix" it by inserting the old code as a workaround. At
least it would all be in the same place then.
> (3) Just remove the old cast code and redirect the include to the new one
> (having broken compilers stop working)
> Since (the old) numeric_cast<> is currently working (at least to some
> extent) with those compilers, and there can still be users around (specially
> bcc5.6.4), (3) is just not an option I think.
> I only has access to bcc5.6.4 so I can make this one work, but I can't fix
> the code for VC6 and gcc2.92 as I don't have them here.
> Although the new library has many options and features, the new
> numeric_cast<> is just a checked static_cast<>, and the new library is
> better there only in that it checks more reliably; therefore, I guess (1) is
> good tradeof given this point in the release.
> (Part of the reason the old code works with broken compilers but not the new
> one is because the old code uses a custom version of numeric_limits for
> broken libraries... the new code just doesn't and I prefered to have such
> fixes elsewhere (like in limits.hpp))
> What do you think?
I like 2b.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting 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