From: Douglas Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-27 09:49:00
Beman Dawes wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> That's not a bad idea. I wonder whether it might not be better just to
>> #define constexpr
>> in that case, and use that symbol.
> I thought of that, and decided it wasn't a good idea to define a symbol
> that non-boost code might also be using and/or redefining. But that's
> only a weak opinion, and I'm open to reconsidering it. What do others think?
This will cause problems for compilers where the Boost configuration is
wrong (, e.g., we don't realize that constexpr is supported) and the
user is relying on constexpr in her own code. I think it's better to
stick with BOOST_CONSTEXPR, as ugly as it is :(.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk