Boost logo

Boost :

From: anthony.ajw_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-05-27 08:59:00

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Jumping in at this point in the conversation, why not just define the
>> BOOST_NO_* macros and define the BOOST_HAS_* as being !BOOST_NO_*. That
>> way we get both?
> That's an interesting idea, although perhaps a little to cute. What do
> others think? Does it add value or just confuse?

Well, for one thing it would mean that those of us who have started to
use the BOOST_HAS_ variants won't suddenly find our code broken.


Anthony Williams            | Just Software Solutions Ltd
Custom Software Development |
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at