Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-11 12:30:55
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John
> Maddock
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:21 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Macro fo rBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10 or
> useBOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST
>
> >I have recently used BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST to act as a proxy
> >for support of
> > numeric_limits<T>:: max_digits10 (as correctly suggested by John Maddock).
> >
> > Do we need yet another new macro for this, say
> >
> > BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_MAX_DIGITS10
> >
> > or continue to use BOOST_NO_NUMERIC_LIMITS_LOWEST as a proxy.
> >
> > I think the latter will suffice (despite its unfortunate name for this
> > task).
> >
> > But I think an addition to the configuration macro reference docs
> > would be useful.
>
> Actually, this is one C++11 macro that Marshall missed for renaming. Maybe if we asked him nicely
;-) he
> would volunteer to rename this one to BOOST_NO_CXX11_NUMERIC_LIMITS?
Please Marshall ... ;-)
Paul
PS It will still be useful to include the CXX11 items added to the docs, so that anyone searching
the page boost Macro reference
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_50_0/libs/config/doc/html/boost_config/boost_macro_reference.html
will get to the right place quickly. Can anyone remind me what else was added?