On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:20 AM, John Maddock wrote:
I have recently used BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST to act as a proxy for support of numeric_limits<T>:: max_digits10 (as correctly suggested by John Maddock).
Do we need yet another new macro for this, say
BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10
or continue to use BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST as a proxy.
I think the latter will suffice (despite its unfortunate name for this task).
But I think an addition to the configuration macro reference docs would be useful.
Actually, this is one C++11 macro that Marshall missed for renaming.
I didn't touch that macro, because I didn't think it was a C++11 one. Looking back at the discussion from last month, I see a proposal to add a new macro named BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10, and when John asked for a patch, Paul contributed some bits, but not a complete patch; and no one else did.
Maybe if we asked him nicely ;-) he would volunteer to rename this one to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS?
I don't think that this is a rename job. If I've misread the discussion (or misunderstood the situation), please let me know. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki