Subject: Re: [boost] [msvc] #warning preprocessor directive
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-17 16:46:18
On 10/17/17 9:10 AM, Beman Dawes via Boost wrote:
> The C++ committee is really trying to get away from the preprocessor, so my
> guess is they would be more interested in Robert's static_warning
> suggestion, although they might want to recast even that as some sort of
> constexpr function.
Hmmm - the appeal to me of such a standards committee proposal would be
the the fact that it's just a minor variation on static_assert. So
hopefully the whole saga a standards effort might be reduced to
something in scale to the modest nature of such a proposal. (of course
this is a pipe dream). But if someone want's to much around with it- as
someone will, it could implement as some sort of optional argument to
static_assert which of course opens up the field to all sorts of mischief.
In the meantime, I would love to see someone come up with a useful
implementation of BOOST_STATIC_WARNING.
Robert Ramey
>
> --Beman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>