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: 2012-07-12 10:19:50

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Marshall
> Clow
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:02 PM
> To: 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 10:25 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Ok, it's done (revision 79452).
> 
> The new macro is named BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS, replacing
> BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST.
> The old macro is still around, but set to the value of the new macro, and is listed in the
"deprecated
> macros" section of the docs.
> 
> Paul - please feel free to update the docs to explain how this works (and update your code to use
the new
> macro, natch).

Natch ;-)  and a bit in the docs is also on my TODO list.

Many thanks.

Pau l

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