Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit] formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 10:50 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:

...

AMDG

On 03/05/2016 07:21 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:

...

I want to start a new sub-thread about some of the concerns of Steven Watanabe about whether some of the contents of this library fits better in Boost.Config. In particular the file boost/fit/returns.hpp.

When I mentioned Boost.Config, I was talking about things like

#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.

or

#ifndef BOOST_FIT_HAS_TEMPLATE_ALIAS #if (defined(__GNUC__) && !defined (__clang__) && __GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 7) #define BOOST_FIT_HAS_TEMPLATE_ALIAS 0 #else #define BOOST_FIT_HAS_TEMPLATE_ALIAS 1 #endif

#endif

This could be replaced with Boost.Config, however, I have ran into problems before with template aliases on gcc 4.7, so I wanted to make this configurable as well, although it could fallback onto Boost.Config right now.

In Christ,

Steven Watanabe

_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users