Toon Knapen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Monday 09 December 2002 15:32, Samuel Krempp wrote:
>> On the opposite hand, using the same kind of naming scheme,
>> #ifdef BOOST_NEED_UNREACHABLE_RETURN
>> return whatever;
>> #endif
>
> Well all the time I got really confused in this discussion but this proposal
> is very clear to me. I definitly would prefer this one.
Well, on third look I see that this only stimulates warnings on any of
the compilers I have access to. I wonder if it was worth inciting all
this traffic and work for :(
Maybe so: I like to compile with "all warnings are errors" enabled.
I also note that BOOST_NEED_xxx is not consistent with our naming
scheme. It would have to be something like what we have:
BOOST_NO_UNREACHABLE_RETURN_DETECTION
.
--
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
