Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [Fit]Â 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
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
>> Le 06/03/2016 06:16, paul Fultz a Ã©crit :
>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 10:50 PM, Steven Watanabe <
>>>> #ifndef BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE
>>>> #ifdef _MSC_VER
>>>> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 1
>>>> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 0
>>> This is can be configurable, whereas Boost.Config it is not.
>> I'm not sure this is true.
> 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
Why does it need to be easily configurable?
No one is ever going to care about it except
when Boost.Config is wrong.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net