Phil Richards <news@[...].uk>  writes:

>  On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:09:20 +0000, Paul A Bristow wrote:
>  [Daniel Frey said:]
> > | I really suggest you look at my code at
> > | <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/MathConstants/>, which solves
> > | all of the above points.
> > Except that VC 7.1 doesn't think it is legal C++ :-((
> > I think we need to establish if it is correct (as gcc and Intel think it
> > is)
> 
>  Nope, as has been said a number of times, it is not valid C++.  typeof is
>  not in the existing C++ standard.  It is a very useful extension
>  implemented by a number of vendors, but that doesn't make it standard.
> 
> > Or to find some workaround that VC 7.1 will accept.
> 
>  Indeed.
> 
> > It would be helpful to know what do other highly conformant compilers,
> > like CodeWarrior and Comeau, say about Daniel Frey's proposal?
> 
>  Well, you still have to get over the boost Guidelines saying:
>   Aim for ISO Standard C++. Than means making effective use of the standard
>   features of the language, and avoiding non-standard compiler extensions.
>   It also means using the C++ Standard Library where applicable.
> 
>  It doesn't forbid using extensions, but I seem to remember David Abrahams
>  being a little more assertive about not using non-standard extensions :-)

To be precise, code should usually not *rely* on non-standard
extensions.  It's fine to use non-standard extensions if they can
make the library perform better, use less code, etc., but there
should be a fallback position for compilers that don't support the
extension.


-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost