Le mer 19/03/2003 à 15:19, Beman Dawes a écrit : > >I am currently doing a search for other places where borland v 0x0561 is > >assumed, as I don't think the latest patch fixed any issues that would > >affect boost and it would be a shame to have to choose between boost and > >the patch. > >(especially as Samuel put so much effort into getting this version to be > >Borland compatible! I have mailed him separately off-list in case he is > >not actively monitoring right now, but I know release is close) > > OK, I've made the second set of suggested changes.
thanks a lot. I hadn't followed the ML for a week. (And I didn't really notice the new __BORLANDC__ version) Sorry for not responding sooner. Indeed, updating 0x561 to 0x564 is fine. and has really zero possible secondary effects on any other part of boost. About the || BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT( 0x570 ) ) ) versus && [etc..], it does not really matter. with ||, all __BORLANDC__ are caught. While, hopefully, there could be a future 0x565 version which does not need the workaround. so && was in fact a bit more precise. (but requires updating at each new faulty __BORLANDC__ version). since this workaround doesnt have much impact anyway, enabling for future version is fine, so the || is fine. -- Samuel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
