----- Original Message ----- From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Compile-time print
> "David A. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Fernando Cacciola wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "David A. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 5:10 PM > >> Subject: [boost] Compile-time print > >> > >>>Hi gang, > >>> > >>>Has anyone come across a compile-time print metafunction? > >>> > >> Yep. Look at the attached file: static_print.hpp > > > > Is this going into Boost somewhere eventually? I think it's > > a critically useful thing for metaprogramming. > > > > -Dave > > That's an interesting technique. Are you required to be able to > compare signed char* and unsigned char*? > I don't understand the question :-) Are you asking if it legal to make this comparison? Or if the technique requires is? The technique is simply to produce a warning that is unlikely to be turned off. Anything would work. In bcc5.5.1, comparing chars of different types issues a warning, and I figured that all other compilers would do just the same. But we can figure out some expression that leads to a (severe) warning in most, if not all, compilers. > I don't really understand what's going on with it, but Comeau online > is rejecting it: > Yes, I've just tested it and Comeau says the comparing chars of different types is an error, not a diagnostic. Q: Are compilers required to issue a diagnostic on certain expressions or are they allowed to issue an error. Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
