From: Daryle Walker (dwalker07_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-17 15:19:09
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 7:03 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
> Daryle Walker <dwalker07_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 10:15 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmmm - I never imagined that something like this would be so
>>> problematic.
>>>
>>> For now with my VC 7.0 compiler I can use the following and it
>>> gives me almost exactly what I need. The warning message points
>>> exactly to the place in my code where I have invoked it - just like
>>> BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT.
>>>
>>> I would hope something like this could be boostified so that I could
>>> use it outside of a function.
>> [TRUNCATE]
>>
>> My point was that warnings are non-portable constructions made up by
>> compiler makers.
>
> So are the semantics of #include. That doesn't mean we can't count
> on certain similarities (though they may be hard to find).
Actually, the semantics of #include aren't that made up; they are
constrained by standard. In contrast, a compiler doesn't even have to
have warnings, let alone define them in an easy-to-exploit manner or
with any similarity to other compilers.
I don't want to see a big effort (i.e. a long #if/#elif chain from heck
with subtle details and could break at the next release of any
compiler) on something that is inherently non-portable.
Daryle