"Mark Rodgers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> If this fails to compile, we may need to add a dummy "return 0;" at
>> >> the end. I know of two compilers which act this way: Metrowerks and
>> >> HP.
>> >
>> > What do you want to call it?
>>
>> I'm not happy with it, but...
>>
>> BOOST_NO_NON_RETURN_PATH_COMPREHENSION is the best I could come up
>> with :(
>
> What about having
>
> BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN(0)
> or
> BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN("")
I like it!
> I think we need to "return" values for types other than int.
Of course. My suggestion would have just been used thus:
#ifdef BOOST_NO_NON_RETURN_PATH_COMPREHENSION
return whatever;
#endif
But I like yours better.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
