Re: [boost] BOOST_WORKAROUND question

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-24 11:53:15

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> What would be an equivalent of the following #fief, if I want to re-writte
> it using our new BOOST_WORKAROUND macro?
>
> // last checked with 0x561
> #if defined(__BORLANDC__) && __BORLANDC__ >= 0x561 &&
> !defined(BOOST_STRICT_CONFIG)
>
> Here, "0x561" is the first version requiring the workaround and at the same
> time the last checked version (so, ideally, I would like to be able to check
> if it's outdated).

Here are three ways to spell it:

    #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, >= 0x561) \
     && BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x561))

    #if BOOST_WORKAROUND(
        __BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x561) && __BORLANDC__ >= 0x561)

    #if __BORLANDC__ >= 0x561 \
     && BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x561))

I kinda like the last one.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution