Re: Ticket #2115 Avoid bad Apple macros

Mat Marcus wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes <at> acm.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Mat Marcus <mat-lists <at> emarcus.org>
>>> wrote: ...
>>>
>>>> So, please put pressure on Apple, and file the necessary bug
>>>> reports. But each requirement that a library imposes loses a group
>>>> of users. But please also consider "fixing" boost too.
>>>
>>>
>>> I still haven't seen a concrete proposal as to exactly what a fix
>>> would be.
>>
>> Sadly, I don't know of a better fix than the one you mentioned at the
>> beginning of this thread--namely, that boost avoid using the names
>> that vendors steal with macros in commonly included headers. I didn't
>> like having to rename functions named check() in our code, but my
>> users like it even less when things didn't work for them. (This was
>> some time ago...I didn't look at the original bug report, and I don't
>> know how many Apple headers still pull the offending header in
>> indirectly).

Are the Apple defined macros function-like macros?  If so we could use the 
usual macro-expansion suppression in these cases as we do with min/max.

John. 

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