Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 16:09:15

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > Personally I would prefer that they use the compiler name rather
> > than the developer name. This is to avoid possible future (and
> > past) conflict for companies that have more than one compiler.
> > [...]
> I agree that the compiler name is better. Consider
> BOOST_INPRISE vs. BOOST_BORLAND, for example. ;) I think
> most people know the compiler names well enough that they will be
> familiar.

I'm not against using compiler names instead of company names, but I
don't think it solves very much.

Would we use the name of the development environment, or the name of
the command-line tool? If we're really worried about one company
producing more than one compiler, we should use the name of the
command-line tool, since both tools could conceivably be offered in
one development environment. Then we'd have funny names like BOOST_ICL

In either case, the names can change from version to version, e.g.,

    C++ Builder --> C++BuilderX
    bcc --> bccx

(While it might make sense to have different macros for Borland 5.x
and Borland 6.x -- since they're completely different compilers -- I
wouldn't want the difference to be expressed as the presence or
absence of 'X'.)


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