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 (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-09 01:03:46

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 6:52 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 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.

Well, I guess its mainly only useful for development then. I like to use the
"no expression sfinae" path on clang as I can get better diagnostics. It seems
kind of complicated to change this with Boost.Config, so I would prefer to
have it easily configurable, and then use Boost.Config for the default value.