Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or use BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
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. Perhaps in macro_reference.qbk [[`BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST`][Standard library][ Static function `numeric_limits<T>::lowest()` is not available for use. Also acts as a proxy for static const int `numeric_limits<T>:: max_digits10;` is not available for use. ]] I suspect there are also other additions that went with these two items, but I'm having a senior moment about what they are ;-( Views? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
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. Maybe if we asked him nicely ;-) he would volunteer to rename this one to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS? Cheers, John.
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of John Maddock Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:21 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
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. Maybe if we asked him nicely ;-) he would volunteer to rename this one to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS?
Please Marshall ... ;-) Paul PS It will still be useful to include the CXX11 items added to the docs, so that anyone searching the page boost Macro reference http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_50_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost... will get to the right place quickly. Can anyone remind me what else was added?
On Jul 11, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
PS It will still be useful to include the CXX11 items added to the docs, so that anyone searching the page boost Macro reference
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_50_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost...
I updated the docs; but since it was post-1.50, the 1.50 docs don't reflect those changes. The doc changes were checked in with the code changes. -- 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
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
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Marshall Clow Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:38 PM To: John Maddock Cc: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
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.
BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST works as a proxy for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 but there are other new things added at CX11 too, so really BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST turns out to be a bad name. John suggests renaming BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS (and I think this is a god idea to avoid adding the already long list of macros). This macro BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS will then deal with the need for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10, BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST *and* all the other items added to numeric_limits at Cxx11. Hope this is clearer now. Paul PS And if this is done, we will need to update the docs. I will do this if you wish. --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
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.
BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST works as a proxy for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10
but there are other new things added at CX11 too, so really BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST turns out to be a bad name.
John suggests renaming BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS (and I think this is a god idea to avoid adding the already long list of macros).
This macro BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS will then deal with the need for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10, BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST *and* all the other items added to numeric_limits at Cxx11.
Hope this is clearer now.
Paul
PS And if this is done, we will need to update the docs. I will do this if you wish.
Ok, it's done (revision 79452). The new macro is named BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS, replacing BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST. The old macro is still around, but set to the value of the new macro, and is listed in the "deprecated macros" section of the docs. Paul - please feel free to update the docs to explain how this works (and update your code to use the new macro, natch). -- 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
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Marshall Clow Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:02 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
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.
BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST works as a proxy for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10
but there are other new things added at CX11 too, so really BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST turns out to be a bad name.
John suggests renaming BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS (and I think this is a god idea to avoid adding the already long
On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote: list of macros).
This macro BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS will then deal with the need for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10, BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST *and* all the other items added to numeric_limits at Cxx11.
Hope this is clearer now.
Paul
PS And if this is done, we will need to update the docs. I will do this if you wish.
Ok, it's done (revision 79452).
The new macro is named BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS, replacing BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST. The old macro is still around, but set to the value of the new macro, and is listed in the "deprecated macros" section of the docs.
Paul - please feel free to update the docs to explain how this works (and update your code to use the new macro, natch).
Natch ;-) and a bit in the docs is also on my TODO list. Many thanks. Pau l --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Paul A. Bristow Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:20 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Marshall Clow Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:02 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
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.
BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST works as a proxy for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10
but there are other new things added at CX11 too, so really BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST turns out to be a bad name.
John suggests renaming BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS (and I think this is a god idea to avoid adding the already long
On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote: list of macros).
This macro BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS will then deal with the need for BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10, BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST *and* all the other items added to numeric_limits at Cxx11.
Hope this is clearer now.
Paul
PS And if this is done, we will need to update the docs. I will do this if you wish.
Ok, it's done (revision 79452).
The new macro is named BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS, replacing BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST. The old macro is still around, but set to the value of the new macro, and is listed in the "deprecated macros" section of the docs.
Paul - please feel free to update the docs to explain how this works (and update your code to use the new macro, natch).
Docs updated and html rebuilt Sending content: I:\boost-trunk\libs\config\doc\macro_reference.qbk Completed: At revision: 79456 (in doing this I noted that the other two additions to numeric limits template for 16 and 32 bit already have their own macros, so it would be logical to have a macro for max_digits10, so they are all available individually or in a group using BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS. But I suspect it's not really worth it? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
Le 12/07/12 16:01, Marshall Clow a écrit :
The new macro is named BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS, replacing BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST. The old macro is still around, but set to the value of the new macro, and is listed in the "deprecated macros" section of the docs.
Paul - please feel free to update the docs to explain how this works (and update your code to use the new macro, natch).
Hi, is there a way to don't include all the deprecated macros? Vicente
On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Le 12/07/12 16:01, Marshall Clow a écrit :
The new macro is named BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS, replacing BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST. The old macro is still around, but set to the value of the new macro, and is listed in the "deprecated macros" section of the docs.
Paul - please feel free to update the docs to explain how this works (and update your code to use the new macro, natch).
Hi,
is there a way to don't include all the deprecated macros?
Whoa - interesting question. I don't know of one. However, all the deprecated macros are defined (I _believe_) in one place, in boost/config/suffix.hpp Making it so none of them are defined _should_ be straightforward. -- 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
Le 12/07/12 21:55, Marshall Clow a écrit :
On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
Le 12/07/12 16:01, Marshall Clow a écrit :
The new macro is named BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS, replacing BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST. The old macro is still around, but set to the value of the new macro, and is listed in the "deprecated macros" section of the docs.
Paul - please feel free to update the docs to explain how this works (and update your code to use the new macro, natch).
Hi,
is there a way to don't include all the deprecated macros? Whoa - interesting question. I don't know of one.
However, all the deprecated macros are defined (I _believe_) in one place, in boost/config/suffix.hpp Making it so none of them are defined _should_ be straightforward.
Could I suggest to define all of them in a specific boost/config/deprecated.hpp file, so that we can add a deprecated warning when the file is included. Best, Vicente
is there a way to don't include all the deprecated macros? Whoa - interesting question. I don't know of one.
However, all the deprecated macros are defined (I _believe_) in one place, in boost/config/suffix.hpp Making it so none of them are defined _should_ be straightforward.
Could I suggest to define all of them in a specific boost/config/deprecated.hpp file, so that we can add a deprecated warning when the file is included.
I think it's too soon for that - as things stand you would basically be injecting that warning into every Boost header that includes boost/config.hpp. Besides I don't see what harm defining the old names does? John.
participants (4)
-
John Maddock -
Marshall Clow -
Paul A. Bristow -
Vicente J. Botet Escriba