Re: [boost] Defining compilers suggestion

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-12 09:55:37

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> Okay, I understand what you're driving at.  I'm not sure if going down
> this road is worth the trouble, but if it is, I'd rather see a
> standard system for referring to versions numerically.  So, for
> example:
> 
>         Version   Value
>         -------   -----
>         6.0       060000
>         6.0sp5    060005
>         7.0       070000
>         7.1       070100
>         5.3.4     050304
>         3.4.3     030403
>         2.95.3    029503

You probably need to allow another digit for each field.  95 is
awfully close to rolling over to three digits.

> I don't particularly think 
> 
>   BOOST_COMPILER_VC == BOOST_COMPILER_VC71_VERSION
> 
> is more expressive than
> 
>   BOOST_MSVC_VERSION == 070100

Given a fixed numbering system, the latter is more readable.

> Nor do I think 
> 
>   BOOST_COMPILER_VC <= BOOST_COMPILER_VC71_VERSION_HIGH
> 
> is an improvement over
> 
>   BOOST_MSVC_VERSION < 070200

Given a fixed numbering system, the latter is more readable.

> > In that case you may want to consider at least forms like
> > BOOST_COMPILER_VC71_VERSION and BOOST_COMPILER_VC71_VERSION_HIGH
> > useful for your BOOST_WORKAROUND and BOOST_TESTED_AT macros.
> 
> I understand why you want it, but am not fond of your proposed names
> and syntax.

I like the fixed numbering system, though.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;