Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit]Â formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
From: paul Fultz (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-09 01:03:46
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 6:52 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > AMDG
> On 03/06/2016 09:39 PM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 3:44:31 AM UTC-6, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
>>> Le 06/03/2016 06:16, paul Fultz a Ã©crit :
>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 10:50 PM, Steven Watanabe <
>>>>> #ifndef BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE
>>>>> #ifdef _MSC_VER
>>>>> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 1
>>>>> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 0
>>>> This is can be configurable, whereas Boost.Config it is not.
>>> I'm not sure this is true.
>> That doesn't seem easily configurable by the user. I think I would
>> to make it configurable by the library and use Boost.Config for the default
> Why does it need to be easily configurable?
> No one is ever going to care about it except
> when Boost.Config is wrong.
Well, I guess its mainly only useful for development then. I like to use the
"no expression sfinae" path on clang as I can get better diagnostics. It seems
kind of complicated to change this with Boost.Config, so I would prefer to
have it easily configurable, and then 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