From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 01:33:25
Paul Mensonides wrote:
[...]
> That is what the result *should* be, IMO. It is a valid
> concatenation of the preprocessing token "d_" and the preprocessing
> token "some_value" that yields the single, valid preprocessing token
> "d_some_value". "other." shouldn't matter anymore.
Yep.
If 'BOOST_PP_CAT(other.d_,PPV_NAME(I))' is indeed what causes the compiler
to issue the diagnostic, then it's a bug.
Aleksey