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: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-11 13:25:30

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Marshall
> Clow
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:38 PM
> To: John Maddock
> Cc: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or
> useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
> 
> 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.

BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST works as a proxy for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10

but there are other new things added at CX11 too, so really BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST turns out
to be a bad name.

John suggests renaming BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST  to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS  (and I
think this is a god idea to avoid adding the already long list of macros).

This macro BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS  will then deal with the need for
BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10, BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST  *and* all the other items
added to numeric_limits at Cxx11.

Hope this is clearer now.

Paul

PS And if this is done, we will need to update the docs.  I will do this if you wish.

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]