Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit]Â formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-06 23:39:25
On Sunday, March 6, 2016 at 3:44:31 AM UTC-6, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
wrote:
>
> Le 06/03/2016 06:16, paul Fultz a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 10:50 PM, Steven Watanabe <
> watan..._at_[hidden] <javascript:>> wrote:
> >>> AMDG
> >> On 03/05/2016 07:21 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> >>> I want to start a new sub-thread about some of the concerns of
> Steven
> >>> Watanabe about whether some of the contents of this library fits
> better
> >>> in Boost.Config. In particular the file boost/fit/returns.hpp.
> >>>
> >> When I mentioned Boost.Config, I was talking about
> >> things like
> >>
> >> #ifndef BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE
> >> #ifdef _MSC_VER
> >> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 1
> >> #else
> >> #define BOOST_FIT_NO_EXPRESSION_SFINAE 0
> >> #endif
> >> #endif
> > This is can be configurable, whereas Boost.Config it is not.
> I'm not sure this is true.
>
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/libs/config/doc/html/index.html#boost_config.configuring_boost_for_your_platform.user_settable_options
That doesn't seem easily configurable by the user. I think I would prefer
to make it configurable by the library and use Boost.Config for the default
value.