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: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-08 19:51:43

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 
> 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: 
>>>>
>>>> #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.
> 

  Why does it need to be easily configurable?
No one is ever going to care about it except
when Boost.Config is wrong.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe