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
>> 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 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