Re: [boost] Boost.Process 0.2 released

From: Boris (boriss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-05 18:52:44

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:55:13 +0200, Boris <boriss_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]
>> Macros as constants are pretty much shunned. Worse, the two options  
>> here have different behaviour if they're not on the global namespace.  
>> (And also if they are, since the macro prevents all other uses of the  
>> name.)
>
> I should have written the code differently:
>
> #if defined(_MSC_VER)
> #  define INVALID_VALUE INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE
> #else
> BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(handle_type, INVALID_VALUE = -1);
> #endif
>
> Now it's obvious that the macro is a workaround for VC++ only. While  
> Sebastian's points are valid do they justify to change a class'  
> interface because of a limitation of one compiler? I've no preference  
> (especially as VC++ is not an unimportant compiler of course).

As it turns out we are talking about private members of a class here. Thus  
I got rid of the static constant and macro and took over the static method  
 from Boost.Process in Subversion (whatever version of Boost.Process that  
is).

Boris