Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-10 17:40:05

Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>How about these?
>>>
>>>   #define BOOST_COMPILER_WITH_VERSION(compiler,version) \
>>>     (compiler == version)
>>>
>>>   #define BOOST_COMPILER_ABOVE_VERSION(compiler,version) \
>>>     (compiler > version)
>>>

<snip>

>> No.  That's what BOOST_WORKAROUND does, and BOOST_WORKAROUND does it
>> better.  Please read
>> http://www.boost-consulting.com/boost/boost/detail/workaround.hpp
>> 
>
> Know it already. Personally I'm not too much into the stuff I posted either. But 
> the code shows a reasonable set of comparison operations if we encode them in the 
> macro name.

Why should we do that when we can just write the comparison operator
with BOOST_WORKAROUND?

> We might as well (which seems even better to me) take the comparison operator as 
> part of the macro argument like BOOST_WORKAROUND does:
>
>    #define BOOST_MSVC_VERSION(test) (defined(BOOST_MSVC) && (BOOST_MSVC test))

That's not legal code.  What are you trying to accomplish that
BOOST_WORKAROUND doesn't already provide?

> And while we're at it -- I'ld like a variant of BOOST_TESTED_AT, "BOOST_TESTED" 
> that also takes the comparison operator:
>
>     BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC,BOOST_TESTED(> 1200))

And what do you think that is supposed to do?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com