On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:00:36 -0000, "John Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Can't we detect >> whether the compiler is supporting "long long" and only enable the >> long long code under those circumstances? In fact, /don't/ we do >> that? >> >> If this is just about inconvenient warnings, it seems to me that >> telling people "disable long long support or disable the warning" is a >> perfectly sensible approach. >> >> What am I missing? > >I agree completely: the issue is that older EDG compilers (prior to 3.0.0) >don't signal whether they're in strict mode or not Well, it's unfair to offload it on the compilers though. They aren't certainly obliged to tell you that a non standard type is not available. But I'm getting tired of all this discussion, I'm just replying for the equity's sake. Just to set records straight: the problem was not compilers; it's just that one should IMHO be able to compile, let's say, boost::is_integral in strict mode, unless she does use is_integral<long long>. If I just use is_integral<int>, why should I get errors? As you know (see http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg29582.php ) __NO_LONG_LONG is just a 3.0 addition. There's a whole world of EDG front ends that don't have it, and there's a whole world of EDG users who want to compile in strict mode. BTW, Dave asked "can't we detect whether the compiler is supporting long long?". Can we? Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
