Re: [boost] Re: Version #defines?

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-18 08:54:18

At 03:34 PM 3/16/2001, Mark Rodgers wrote:
 >From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
 >>
 >>  >#define BOOST_VERSION 0102101
 >>  >
 >>  >and document that
 >>  >
 >>  > BOOST_VERSION % 100 is the sub-minor version
 >>  > BOOST_VERSION /100 % 1000 is the minor version
 >>  > BOOST_VERSION / 100000 is the major version
 >>  >
 >>  >checking whether 1.21.0 or later is then as easy as
 >>  >
 >>  >#if BOOST_VERSION >= 0102100
 >>
 >> I'll go with this approach, absent a killer argument against.   But 
minus
 >> the octal constant:-)
 >
 >Any reason why couldn't also add
 >
 >#define BOOST_VERSION_MAJOR (BOOST_VERSION / 100000)
 >
 >Then there is still only one version number to increment on new
 >releases, but we avoid the need for people to work out how to crack
 >apart the version number if they really do require it.

Several of us were trying to discourage looking at just the minor version 
number in #if's.  There is some experience (with gcc IIRC) that separating 
out the minor version gets abused.  But I don't know if that experience 
applies to us, since they didn't have the equivalent of BOOST_VERSION, 
again IIRC.

--Beman