27 May
2008
27 May
'08
1:58 p.m.
Beman Dawes wrote:
Sean Hunt wrote:
Jumping in at this point in the conversation, why not just define the BOOST_NO_* macros and define the BOOST_HAS_* as being !BOOST_NO_*. That way we get both?
That's an interesting idea, although perhaps a little to cute. What do others think? Does it add value or just confuse?
I think it just confuses the issue and doubles the number of macros a developer has to think about. - Doug