On 10/17/17 9:10 AM, Beman Dawes via Boost wrote:
The C++ committee is really trying to get away from the preprocessor, so my guess is they would be more interested in Robert's static_warning suggestion, although they might want to recast even that as some sort of constexpr function.
Hmmm - the appeal to me of such a standards committee proposal would be the the fact that it's just a minor variation on static_assert. So hopefully the whole saga a standards effort might be reduced to something in scale to the modest nature of such a proposal. (of course this is a pipe dream). But if someone want's to much around with it- as someone will, it could implement as some sort of optional argument to static_assert which of course opens up the field to all sorts of mischief. In the meantime, I would love to see someone come up with a useful implementation of BOOST_STATIC_WARNING. Robert Ramey
--Beman
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost