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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
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 +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk