Re: [Boost-users] Re:Configquestion:BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T(Intel7.1)

30 Apr 2004

      John Maddock wrote:
...
...
It seems to me that it would be better still to put
#ifdef BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T
        BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(is_same::value);
    #else
        BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(!is_same::value);
    #endif
after the conditional definition of BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T to
verify that the macro has been set/unset correctly.
Not a bad idea, but it brings in a lot of type-traits code that may not
actually be needed...
Actually, it could be as simple as

#if defined(BOOST_NO_INTRINSIC_WCHAR_T)
template< typename T > struct assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t;
template<> struct assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t { typedef void type; };
typedef assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t<unsigned short>::type assert_no_intrinsic_wchar_t_;
#else
template< typename T > struct assert_intrinsic_wchar_t;
template<> struct assert_intrinsic_wchar_t {};
template<> struct assert_intrinsic_wchar_t<unsigned short> {};
#endif

With an appropriate comment as suggested by Christopher, it'd be a noticable
improvement over the status quo.

--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering