Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-24 07:52:15
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> boost config includes BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T.
> boost Is there any chance we might see BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_INT64_T
> appear in the near future?
Should we reserve the BOOST_NO_* names for broken compilers that fail
to correctly support a language or standard library feature?
In other words, should these two be named:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk