Russell Hind wrote: > > Does anybody know if this needs fixing, or is it my mistake. If it > needs fixing, is someone able to do it before 1.30.0 is released?
Yes, I think it needs fixing! I think simply dropping the separate test for 0x0561 is easiest, given the Kylix test covers both. Otherwise, I think the test should have been ||, not &&. i.e. switch from > Looking in format.hpp (line 43) there is > > #if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) || ( BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, <= 0x561) \ > && BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x570 ) ) ) > #define BOOST_BAD_ISDIGIT > #endif to either > #if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( > 0x570 ) ) ) > #define BOOST_BAD_ISDIGIT > #endif or > #if defined(BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE) || ( BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, <= 0x564) \ > || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x570 ) ) ) > #define BOOST_BAD_ISDIGIT > #endif I think the idea it to use BOOST_TESTED_AT until a known version of the compiler no longer has the issue (when the 'simple' version test is applied)? AlisdairM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
