Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit] formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-06 23:39:25


On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 3:44:31 AM UTC-6, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
wrote:
>
> Le 06/03/2016 06:16, paul Fultz a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 10:50 PM, Steven Watanabe <
> watan..._at_[hidden] <javascript:>> wrote:
> >>> AMDG
> >> On 03/05/2016 07:21 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> >>> I want to start a new sub-thread about some of the concerns of
> Steven
> >>> Watanabe about whether some of the contents of this library fits
> better
> >>> in Boost.Config. In particular the file boost/fit/returns.hpp.
> >>>
> >> When I mentioned Boost.Config, I was talking about
> >> things like
> >>
> >> #ifndef BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE
> >> #ifdef _MSC_VER
> >> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 1
> >> #else
> >> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 0
> >> #endif
> >> #endif
> > This is can be configurable, whereas Boost.Config it is not.
> I'm not sure this is true.
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/libs/config/doc/html/index.html#boost_config.configuring_boost_for_your_platform.user_settable_options

That doesn't seem easily configurable by the user. I think I would prefer
to make it configurable by the library and use Boost.Config for the default
value.
 


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk