Boost logo

Boost :

From: Russell Hind (rhind_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-14 02:51:05

Edward Diener wrote:
> My main concern is that code which tests specifically for some BCB6
> __BORLANDC__ number, such as 0x561, and assumes only this means BCB6, has
> not been updated to also test for 0x562 and 0x564 when appropriate. But I
> don't know if this is the case anywhere, which was the reason for my
> original post.

This is why I think a __BORLANDC__LATEST could be used. Define it as
0x564 now, and if __BORLANDC__ > __BORLANDC__LATEST, then error to show
that a new version has been released. Then, either __BORLANDC__LATEST
could just be updated to include the new version, or specific patches
could be then given specific version numbers if the latest patch has
fixed the problem.

Another way is to try and remove completely checks against compiler
versions in code and put all this checks in compiler config header, then
when new versions come out, you just update the list for the new version
in one place. This may be a better solution but will mean a lot of
#defines in the compiler config headers for non-conforming compilers.



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at