Re: [boost] [Config] Testing instructions for compiler vendors

From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-10 06:32:02

> OK, now I've rewritten and re-thought this email about 5 times ;-)

Only 5 ? ;->

> I'm going to ask a controversial question: what is the point of
> checking the version at all in the case above, really?  If you buy my
> argument that the user surely knows what he's doing when he specifies
> BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG, there's no reason not to let BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG
> turn off workarounds always. In that case, the test above might as
> well just be:
>
>    # if defined(__BORLANDC__) && !defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG)
>
> And, it seems to me, if the presumption that the bug being worked
> around is likely present in future versions is correct, this is better
> because there's no associated maintenance cost (i.e. nobody has to
> bump the version number). I think the current "accepted form" quoted
> by you and Aleksey is theoretically interesting, but the version
> number doesn't have much value other than as a comment. Wouldn't
>
>
>    #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, != 0) // last checked at 0x569
>
> or
>
>    #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, +0x569)
>    // not sure about overflow issues, so maybe not
>
> be just as good, or maybe even better?

I agree completely, and I'll even promise not to change my mind for at least
a week :-)

John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm