From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-23 08:08:24
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:05:48 -0500, David Abrahams
>If we define these compiler-identification macros properly (all are
>defined, most to zero), we can use a BOOST_WORKAROUND macro to
>eliminate the first condition.
Yep. I didn't think of this. If we do so, it's not necessary to have
16*16 defines. We could have 16 #defines to zero in
select_compiler_config.hpp, and then, in each compiler-config file:
#define BOOST_THIS_COMPILER version
This reduces the number of definitions from 16*16 to 16+16. Ok, I know
you already thought to this... it was just to prevent possible
>IMO we should try to do this in a big sweep if practical.
Yes. Ok with me.
>I think we should use names of compilers rather than companies.
>Someday we may have several C++ offerings from the same company.
Yes, Jonathan makes a good point too, in this regard.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk