> Ok, you've said "yes"! Followed by a large *but* ;-)
> > but BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT is dependent upon the config, even if the rest > >of your code is not, sorry :-/ > > Which is what I said in reply to Gustavo. That doesn't mean that you > have to include boost/config *instead* of static_constant.hpp. If BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT were independent of the config then it would be a good idea, but it's not so it's not such a good idea IMO - I don't see any point in having a header that just contains: #include <boost/config.hpp> and nothing else. All we're doing is creating more work for the preprocessor to do for no good reason IMO. John Maddock http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
