From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 10:28:48
On Saturday 03 January 2004 03:35 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> I am inclined towards a new policy for Boost which requires compiler
> identification only via BOOST_-prefixed macros.
For workarounds, I agree. For extensions (such as the aforementioned #pragma
once), we should allow use of non-BOOST_-prefixed macros, because vendors
claiming compatibility with another compiler generally support the
extensions... just not the weirdo bugs that Boost tends to encounter.
> If we do that, we can also ensure that BOOST_CONFIG #defines all of
> them (mostly to zero) and we can eliminate the issues with warnings
> from BOOST_WORKAROUND doing comparisons on macros which haven't been
I didn't realize there were such issues, but this is a good idea.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk