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

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 02:44:09

David Abrahams wrote:
> > I agree completely, and I'll even promise not to change my 
> > mind for at least a week :-)
> 
> Good! You, Aleksey and I all agree. So shall we go with this 
> definition of BOOST_WORKAROUND from Gennaro Prota?
> 
>    #define BOOST_WORKAROUND(symbol, test) ((symbol != 0) && 
> (symbol test))

Looks good to me. How about keeping it in a separate header, though?
Personally, I am getting annoyed by having to write, for example:

    #include "boost/config.hpp" // for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT

instead of

    #include "boost/config/static_constant.hpp"

and by tracking down whether a header still needs "boost/config.hpp" include
after you've removed, let's say, all BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG references.

> And, I suggest
> 
>     BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, |0x569)
> 
> As the standard "comment" about the last known version where the
> workaround is needed.
> 

Agreed.

Aleksey