From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 13:53:39
"Gennaro Prota" <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> Currently, there are 16 config files in boost/config/compiler/ but
> don't need so much macros immediately. So I just propose the
> (other ones can be added on an "as needed" basis):
> BOOST_GNU (1)
> BOOST_MSVC (2)
These all look good to me.
> (1) since the other macros employ the name of the producing
> rather than the name of the compiler, BOOST_GNU seems more
> than BOOST_GCC (though, of course, GNU is not a "company")
Seems fine; BOOST_GNU is closer to what is currently used.
> (2) this is inconsistent, but it already exists. Maybe
> BOOST_MICROSOFT, or BOOST_MS, could be provided as a synonym.
BOOST_MSVC is well-established. Adding a synonym will just lead people
to wonder about possible differences in meaning.
Perhaps there should also be BOOST_MPW and BOOST_DIGITALMARS, because
of the ambiguity of __SC__. In fact, I don't see any reason not to add
macros for each supported compiler. That way library authors won't
have to keep track of which compilers have boost macros, and code
won't have to be revised if more spoofing arises in the future.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk