From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-19 08:06:54
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