John Torjo wrote: > But I guess we're on the same side ;-) > This is what we wanted with BOOST_HAS_CURRENT_FUNCTION : just to tell us if > the current compiler has a FUNCTION_NAME facility. > (so, it could be renamed: BOOST_HAS_FUNCTION_NAME) > > If we find that a current compiler has a FUNCTION_NAME facility, we (the > maintainer, of course) update the current_function.hpp header. > > Where am I wrong?
I am suggesting an opt-out only for compilers we have confirmed will never have the facility. You are suggesting an opt-in only for those compilers we have configured. This changes the emphasis somewhat <g> [Although the same effects can be achieved] -- AlisdairM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
