Subject: Re: [boost] [inspect] More changes to Inspection Report
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-09 18:38:40
Rene Rivera-2 wrote:
> Marshall Clow wrote:
>> There is a way to deal with this which doesn't require any code
>> changes. The macros in question are defined in a file
>> "/usr/include/AssertMacros.h", which is guarded by an
>> #ifndef __ASSERTMACROS__ #define __ASSERTMACROS__ ...... #endif
>> construct. If we were to define __ASSERTMACROS__ in the darwin.jam
>> file, then these macros would never be defined.
>> However, this could lead to other problems down the road.
> It would lead to problems now for anyone using BBv2 for non-Boost (or
> mixed) development and happens to be using those macros. If we had a
> standard "prefix.hpp" & "suffix.hpp" that all libraries could include we
> could def+undef the guard while including Boost headers. But this is
> still fragile as people could include the AssertMacros.h before Boost
I've read recent discussion and the ticket 2115  and my impression is
problem has not been solved, has it?
Is there any recommendation how to cope with this problem in Boost
-- Mateusz Loskot http://mateusz.loskot.net -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-inspect--More-changes-to-Inspection-Report-tp27225588p27843621.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk