Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Compiling server sample with VS2008 & boost 1.41

[Jeroen H. <vex...@gm...>]

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 22:37, Dean Michael Berris
<mik...@gm...> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> 2010/1/20 Dean Michael Berris <mik...@gm...>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Glyn Matthews <gly...@gm...>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 2010/1/20 Nelson, Erik - 2 <eri...@ba...>
>>> >>
>>> >> After I fix that, the next error I get is:
>>> >> 1>c:\work\boost\boost/network/uri/http/detail/parse_specific.hpp(74) :
>>> >> error C2065: 'not' : undeclared identifier
>>> >>
>>> >> Adding #include <ciso646> to parse_specific.hpp gets it on the road,
>>> >> but
>>> >> then I come to something I don't see any obvious answer to:
>>> >>
>>>
>>> It seems that you're using the version in the 'master' branch. Can you
>>> try the latest from 0.5-devel?
>>>
>>> Anyway the "real" fix would be to change 'not' into !.
>>
>> Just a point about the use of `not` and `or` that have made their way into
>> the code, but I had no idea that these were keywords in C++.  In fact, IMO
>> they're much clearer than writing `!` or `||` etc. but I've never seen
>> this.  Can anyone explain why they exist but are never used?
>>
>
> I think it's because vendors aren't quick to support them natively in
> the compiler. GCC takes this in stride just fine as does other vendors
> (Intel's compiler is another one I know that works pretty well). I
> would quote the appropriate parts of the C++ standard if I had a copy
> (which I promise I should buy someday soon) but anyway it's something
> really annoying to me for non-conformant compilers like MSVC.
>
> I also like them better but unfortunately to support more compilers
> we're going to have to stick with !, ||, && et al.
>
> --
> Dean Michael Berris
> cplusplus-soup.com | twitter.com/deanberris
> linkedin.com/in/mikhailberis | facebook.com/dean.berris | deanberris.com
>

Just found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B#C.2B.2B_operator_synonyms
which is the best explanation I've found so far and quotes the
relevant parts in the cite-note I believe.

As a side-note, I too prefer `and` over `&&`, though for portability I
think we should stick to the latter.

Jeroen