Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-11 12:30:55
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:21 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or
> >I have recently used BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST to act as a proxy
> >for support of
> > numeric_limits<T>:: max_digits10 (as correctly suggested by John Maddock).
> > Do we need yet another new macro for this, say
> > BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10
> > or continue to use BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST as a proxy.
> > I think the latter will suffice (despite its unfortunate name for this
> > task).
> > But I think an addition to the configuration macro reference docs
> > would be useful.
> Actually, this is one C++11 macro that Marshall missed for renaming. Maybe if we asked him nicely
> would volunteer to rename this one to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS?
Please Marshall ... ;-)
PS It will still be useful to include the CXX11 items added to the docs, so that anyone searching
the page boost Macro reference
will get to the right place quickly. Can anyone remind me what else was added?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk