Gennaro Prota wrote:
Looking further at the header, I noticed that BOOST_WORKAROUND is only used for __MWERKS__. Why? I guess it only makes sense to use it for Borland, actually, because that would allow to detect when the workaround will be outdated. If you agree with that, attached is a different patch.
+ #elif defined(__MWERKS__) && (__MWERKS__ < 0x3003) \ + || (defined (__BORLANDC__) && \ + BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x564))) This should really be: #elif BOOST_WORKAROUND(__MWERKS__, < 0x3003) \ || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x564)) And, didnt't we settle for using BOOST_MY_COMPILER instead of checking __MY_COMPILER__ directly? We could try and follow this convention at least for new code we add.
Secondly, is it ok that 'STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE' is all-uppercase but not prefixed by 'BOOST_'?
Isn't that a class? Then it doesn't matter. BTW, "agurt" is the (nick)name of whoever added that comment line. cvs annotate is your friend if you can't unmangle it. -- Giovanni Bajo