From: Boris (boriss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-05 18:52:44
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:55:13 +0200, Boris <boriss_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> [...]
>> Macros as constants are pretty much shunned. Worse, the two options
>> here have different behaviour if they're not on the global namespace.
>> (And also if they are, since the macro prevents all other uses of the
>> name.)
>
> I should have written the code differently:
>
> #if defined(_MSC_VER)
> # define INVALID_VALUE INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE
> #else
> BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(handle_type, INVALID_VALUE = -1);
> #endif
>
> Now it's obvious that the macro is a workaround for VC++ only. While
> Sebastian's points are valid do they justify to change a class'
> interface because of a limitation of one compiler? I've no preference
> (especially as VC++ is not an unimportant compiler of course).
As it turns out we are talking about private members of a class here. Thus
I got rid of the static constant and macro and took over the static method
from Boost.Process in Subversion (whatever version of Boost.Process that
is).
Boris