Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST

Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-11 12:38:04

On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:20 AM, John Maddock wrote:

>> 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.  

I didn't touch that macro, because I didn't think it was a C++11 one.

Looking back at the discussion from last month, I see a proposal to add a new macro named 
BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10, and when John asked for a patch, Paul contributed some bits,
but not a complete patch; and no one else did.

> Maybe if we asked him nicely ;-)  he would volunteer to rename this one to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS?

I don't think that this is a rename job.
If I've misread the discussion (or misunderstood the situation), please let me know.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Idio Software   <mailto:mclow.lists_at_[hidden]>

A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
        -- Yu Suzuki