13 Jul
2004
13 Jul
'04
2:09 p.m.
On Jul 12, 2004, at 10:03 PM, Toon Knapen wrote:
Matthias Troyer wrote:
Yes, the problem was that one of the constants was intialized with a 64-bit constant, and that did not fit into an int. If it is important I could reproduce it tomorrow and report it.
No need to reproduce the problem. I think this confirms that BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT's that are not bigger than ints can be BOOST_WORKAROUND'ed with the enum trick until IBM conforms to DR454.
How would you do a BOOST_WORKAROUND in a template code where you might not know the value of the static constant? I think that any constant depending on a template parameter will still have to be treated like it is done now. Matthias