Re: Re: Re: more ublas test problems

From: Benedikt Weber (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-18 05:38:13

Hi Joerg

jhr.walter_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Hi Benedikt,
>
>  I've already changed the start of it in my local copy to
>
> ----------
> // Compiler specific problems: default configuration
> #if defined (BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG) || ! (\
>         defined (BOOST_MSVC) || \
>         defined (__GNUC__) || \
>         defined (__BORLANDC__) || \
>         defined (_ICL) || \
>         defined (_ICC) || \
>         defined (__COMO__) || \
>         defined (__MWERKS__))
> ...
> #endif
> ----------
>
> and added
>
> ----------
> // Metrowerks Codewarrior
> #if defined (__MWERKS__) && ! defined (BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG)
>
> #define BOOST_UBLAS_TYPENAME typename
> #define BOOST_UBLAS_USING using
> #define BOOST_UBLAS_EXPLICIT explicit
>
> #define BOOST_UBLAS_USE_LONG_DOUBLE
>
> #define BOOST_UBLAS_USE_STREAM
>
> #define BOOST_UBLAS_NO_MEMBER_FRIENDS
>
> #endif
> ----------

Works fine, thanks!

> I've never put too much effort into the adoption of the
> build system, because ublas is header only from a user perspective.

You are right! The reason I was drifted towards bjam was because I was
actually trying to understand bjam, so I could use it for an other project.
Testing ublas was only a byproduct ;-).

This does not mean that I am not interested in ublas. I still hope to use it
one day in a project. In the meantime I am following the posts on the
ublas-dev group at Yahoo.

Benedikt