Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [Fit]Â 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
>>> 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
>> 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.
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.
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