Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota <at> yahoo.com> writes:
The last piece of the puzzle, now, is choosing a migration plan. BOOST_WORKAROUND will have a different interface and I don't think it is feasible to replace all invocations in one sweep (though I haven't actually counted them) and even if it is the risk of destabilization is high. What about momentarily use BOOST_WORKAROUND_2 as name for the new macro and gradually do the transition? At the end, we would have just to change BOOST_WORKAROUND_2 to BOOST_WORKAROUND everywhere. Not that I like this too much but this is the only idea that I have.
Why not rename BOOST_WORKAROUND to BOOST_WORKAROUND_OLD or similar, do a global replace and use the now vacant BOOST_WORKAROUND id for the new stuff? Unlike the global replace you talk about, the one required for this procedure is totally harmless and I'd say its associated risk of destabilization is close to zero. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo