Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [Fit]Â formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [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.