Subject: Re: [boost] [msvc] #warning preprocessor directive
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-17 17:36:00
On 10/17/2017 12:10 PM, Beman Dawes via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 10/17/17 16:14, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> Maybe someone could promote #warning as an official addition to the C++
>>> standard ?
>> I think, if it has to be in a standard, it should become part of C first.
> Nowadays there is tighter liaison between the C and C++ committees, so if
> it gets proposed for C++ it will more-or-less automatically also get
> proposed for C.
> The C++ committee is really trying to get away from the preprocessor, so my
> guess is they would be more interested in Robert's static_warning
> suggestion, although they might want to recast even that as some sort of
> constexpr function.
There is an obvious difference between a preprocessor #warning and a
static_warning. I have not used #warning in gcc, but since it is a
preprocessor warning I assume it can only be created as part of
preprocessor logic, ie.
etc, and on to more complicated things in libraries like boost pp or vmd.
Whereas a static_warning can occur in template code, constexpr code, and
anything else determined purely at compile time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk