27 May
2008
27 May
'08
12:59 p.m.
Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Jumping in at this point in the conversation, why not just define the BOOST_NO_* macros and define the BOOST_HAS_* as being !BOOST_NO_*. That way we get both?
That's an interesting idea, although perhaps a little to cute. What do others think? Does it add value or just confuse?
Well, for one thing it would mean that those of us who have started to use the BOOST_HAS_ variants won't suddenly find our code broken. Anthony -- Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL