18 Nov
2004
18 Nov
'04
8:35 p.m.
"Arias Brent-P96059" <Brent.Arias@gdds.com> writes:
As you can see in the above definition, I've included an explicit "false" clause for BOOST_PP_IIF() that expands into the harmless (and utterly superfluous) expression "static void PP_NILFUNC();". I would instead have preferred to use BOOST_PP_EXPR_IIF and thus avoid the eye-sore. But the hack was necessary, as I said before, because BOOST_PP_SEQ_ENUM does not elogantly handle the empty "false" result of BOOST_PP_EXPR_IIF.
Can this be fixed?
I seriously doubt it. The fact that you can't represent an empty SEQ is a known limitation that Paul would have avoided had it been possible. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com