From: Miro Jurisic (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 23:51:43
In article <uekrke8bn.fsf_at_[hidden]>,
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I see no reason to use names longer than those suggested below.
> > BOOST_BORLAND
> > BOOST_COMEAU
> > BOOST_GNU (1)
> > BOOST_INTEL
> > BOOST_MSVC (2)
I would suggest using BOOST_CC_* or BOOST_COMPILER_*, to avoid possible
ambiguities. For instance, BOOST_INTEL in and of itself does not make it clear
whether it denotes a compiler-specific kludge or an architecture-specific kludge.
If the full name of the macro is BOOST_FOO, then the assumption is that FOO will
never be ambiguous within boost. It is therefore a poor choice to make FOO
contain nothing but a vendor-chosen name, IMO.
-- If this message helped you, consider buying an item from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk