Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-11 02:30:15

David Abrahams wrote:
> 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?
> 

No idea, it was part of Edward's proposal.

> 
>>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?
> 

Right. s/defined(BOOST_MSVC)/(BOOST_MSVC != 0)/

> 
>>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?
> 

Evaluate to true if we use MSVC and the compiler version is above 1200. That is, 
with the ability to detect incomplete workarounds (like BOOST_TESTED_AT). It 
further allows us more flexibility to express what was tested and what wasn't when 
submitting patches.

Regards,

Tobias