Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [config]checkforstd::numeric_limits<T>::lowest()availability
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-26 07:10:24


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maddock" <boost.regex_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] [config]checkforstd::numeric_limits<T>::lowest()availability

> >I have followed the "Adding New Defect Macros" and thisnk that I have
>>reached to create the new macro stuff. See attached patches.
>>I guess that this macro should be defined in all the config/stdlib files
>>except when this is provided. I have changed only
>>thre files as I can not test others.
>
> Patch added - but macro changed to BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST.

Yes, this seems a better name.

>>BTW, on cygwin gcc-4.3.4 I get the following error related to nl_types.h
>>file.
>
>>It is normal that the default cygwin installation miss this file?
>
> It appears that cygwin has started to claim to be XSI conformant, but
> without providing all the required headers, also fixed in Trunk.

I will recheck on my installation.
 
>>Beside the macro, I was thinking in adding a specific boost::numeric_limits
>>traits, including the missing features.
>
>>Let me know if this could be useful for others and be included in Boost. If
>>yes I could send you a patch with tests and documentation included.
>
> That looks kind of confusing to me that it only offers lowest(), in any case
> this is one for the mailing list to decide if it should be added.

Yes, I was tempted to add all the other members. What others think of this minor addition?

Thanks,
Vicente


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk