Re: [boost] What to do with platform defining 'null' as preprocessor symbol?

Subject: Re: [boost] What to do with platform defining 'null' as preprocessor symbol?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-23 14:09:06

On Aug 23, 2012 9:59 PM, "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 8/23/2012 1:42 PM, Jeff Flinn wrote:
> > Might it not be better to provide some platform specific config file(s)
> > that undef offending macro names. In the case of nil in fusion, I'd hate
> > to see a loss in clarity because of some bad platform practice. I've
> > been able to address these issues by #undef'ing in just a few places.
>
> Bad idea, IMO. Boost shouldn't be messing with things defined in 3rd
> party headers, especially platform headers. #including a boost header
> shouldn't change the meaning of existing code, or make valid platform
> code invalid. The same reason went into the Boost min/max guidelines and
> Herculean effort to bring our codebase into compliance with them.

Perhaps, pragmas like push/pop_macro could help on compilers that support
it?