Re: [Boost-users] Re:Configquestion:BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T(Intel7.1)

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-30 06:33:00

John Maddock wrote:
> > It seems to me that it would be better still to put
> >
> >     #ifdef BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T
> >         BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(is_same<unsigned short, wchar_t>::value);
> >     #else
> >         BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(!is_same<unsigned short, wchar_t>::value);
> >     #endif
> >
> > after the conditional definition of BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T to
> > verify that the macro has been set/unset correctly.
> 
> Not a bad idea, but it brings in a lot of type-traits code that may not
> actually be needed...

Actually, it could be as simple as

#if defined(BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T)
template< typename T > struct assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t;
template<> struct assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t<wchar_t> { typedef void type; };
typedef assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t<unsigned short>::type assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t_;
#else
template< typename T > struct assert_intrinsic_wchar_t;
template<> struct assert_intrinsic_wchar_t<wchar_t> {};
template<> struct assert_intrinsic_wchar_t<unsigned short> {};
#endif

With an appropriate comment as suggested by Christopher, it'd be a noticable
improvement over the status quo.

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering