Subject: Re: [boost] [config]checkforstd::numeric_limits<T>::lowest()availability
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-26 07:10:24
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Maddock" <boost.regex_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] [config]checkforstd::numeric_limits<T>::lowest()availability
> >I have followed the "Adding New Defect Macros" and thisnk that I have
>>reached to create the new macro stuff. See attached patches.
>>I guess that this macro should be defined in all the config/stdlib files
>>except when this is provided. I have changed only
>>thre files as I can not test others.
>
> Patch added - but macro changed to BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST.
Yes, this seems a better name.
>>BTW, on cygwin gcc-4.3.4 I get the following error related to nl_types.h
>>file.
>
>>It is normal that the default cygwin installation miss this file?
>
> It appears that cygwin has started to claim to be XSI conformant, but
> without providing all the required headers, also fixed in Trunk.
I will recheck on my installation.
>>Beside the macro, I was thinking in adding a specific boost::numeric_limits
>>traits, including the missing features.
>
>>Let me know if this could be useful for others and be included in Boost. If
>>yes I could send you a patch with tests and documentation included.
>
> That looks kind of confusing to me that it only offers lowest(), in any case
> this is one for the mailing list to decide if it should be added.
Yes, I was tempted to add all the other members. What others think of this minor addition?
Thanks,
Vicente