----- Original Message ----- From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Well, it does rule out some use-cases, and it is not ideal to have such limitations, but it should > > still be useful for testing whether an object-like macro, such as an include guard, or a config > > macro, has been defined. I think that there are many uses for the > > macro. > > How can you use a macro which only tells you if a function-like macro > is defined to tell you if an object-like macro is defined? No, it only tells you if an object-like macro is defined or not. If a function-like macro is passed into the "function," it will more than likely result in an attempted call of the macro with insufficient arguments--which is illegal. I.e. this would be fine: #define MY_CONFIG_MACRO IS_EMPTY( MY_CONFIG_MACRO ) // 1 ...while this is not a valid input: #define MY_CONFIG_MACRO(a, b) IS_EMPTY( MY_CONFIG_MACRO ) // error insufficient arguments Paul Mensonides _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
